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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides in Riverwoods, Illinois. He has four children, and is married to Sharon Wheat-Hester. Petitioner received his undergraduate degree from Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Petitioner also received a master’s degree and doctorate degree in theology from Share-A- Prayer and Word Theological School in Whitewater, Wisconsin. Petitioner is currently employed as the director of a ministry called Marketplace Movement Network. The ministry provides advice to businesses on Chritian business ethics. In that regard, Petitioner has published one book on the subject of Christian ethics in business. Petitioner is also the President and shareholder of Hester International, Inc., a Florida Corporation that since 1995, provides mortgage brokerage services in the State of Illinois and several other states. The corporation’s principal office is located in Illinois. The business has an established client list and referral list. Additionally, Petitioner is currently licensed as a mortgage broker in the Illinois, California, North Carolina and Hawaii. He has not had any disciplinary action taken against him in those states. On January 25, 1996, prior to the present license application at issue here, Petitioner sought licensure as a mortgage broker in Florida with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Respondent’s predecessor agency. On the 1996 application Petitioner answered “no” to a question that asked whether he had ever had a license revoked. Petitioner’s 1996 application was denied for a material misrepresentation or omission. Petitioner did not challenge the 1996 denial. On February 16, 2004, also prior to the present application, Petitioner again applied for a mortgage broker license. On this application, question number six asked: Have you had a license, or the equivalent, to practice any profession or occupation denied, revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against which involved fraud, dishonest dealing, or any other act of moral turpitude? Yes No A “Yes” answer to question six required the applicant to attach details, provide a copy of allegations, and also supply documentation of the final disposition of the case. In response to question number six, Petitioner appeared to have marked both the answers “yes” and “no”, but then circled “yes.” On the second page of the application, Petitioner explained his answer to question number six, stating that he had had a real estate license ten years ago and that he had been involved with a dispute for $2,500 and lost the case. The explanation further stated that Petitioner was moving to Illinois at the time, so he voluntarily surrendered his license. On April 1, 2004, without investigating the facts to refresh his memory, Petitioner provided the requested signed letter of explanation. Subsequently, he withdrew his February application because he did not have time to deal with the ongoing questions the agency had regarding his application. Around July 13, 2004, after discussing the February 2004 application with Respondent, Petitioner submitted a revised Application for Licensure as a Mortgage Broker in the State of Florida. In response to question six, Petitioner marked “no” based on his memory that his real estate agent’s license had been “voluntarily surrendered.” Petitioner also submitted character reference letters. Additionally, Petitioner discussed with Respondent any proof of rehabilitation since the “voluntary surrender” of his real estate license. On page two of the July application, Petitioner wrote that his “only blemish” was a voluntary surrender of a real estate license in 1992. Petitioner stated, “[t]his was ‘not’ an act of moral turpitude or fraud.” In a deficiency letter dated July 28, 2004, the Office requested additional information from the Petitioner, including a signed statement explaining his side of the occurrence. On September 30, 2004, the Office received the same statement the Petitioner had previously forwarded to the Office for his February 2004 application. Petitioner again did not avail himself of the opportunity to discover the true facts surrounding the claimed surrender of his license. In the second paragraph of this explanatory letter Petitioner stated that the disciplinary action that led to surrender of his real estate license arose out of a transaction involving one of his customers who rented property to a third- party renter. Petitioner stated that the rental transaction between his customer and the third-party renter occurred in the lobby of Petitioner’s office without his knowledge or help. According to Petitioner’s, somewhat confusing, explanatory letter, the customer did not have the right to rent the house, but collected $2,500 from the renter and then left the state. Later, Petitioner discovered that the customer had closed in escrow and gained temporary occupancy of the home, thereby enabling the customer to ostensibly rent the home. Petitioner further explained that the renter sued him for the $2,500 and prevailed because the transaction took place in Petitioner’s lobby. Petitioner stated he lost the case because his attorney, Scott Hester (also his brother), was unavailable to make the closing argument and Petitioner had to do his own summation. In fact, Petitioner’s brother never represented Petitioner in the renter’s case because he did not have time to undertake the case. Petitioner did not supply the names of the people referenced in the letter because he did not remember them. As will be seen, at the time of the explanatory letter, Petitioner’s memory of the facts surrounding his license surrender is, at best, faulty. On April 19, 2005, the Office issued its Denial Letter, denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker. As grounds for denial under Section 494.041(2)(c), (g), (i) and (q), Florida Statutes, the letter stated in relevant part: The Office’s background investigation and information you provided revealed the following: You answered Question #6 on your application as “no”, when it asks if you have had a license, or the equivalent, to practice any profession or occupation denied, revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against which involved fraud, dishonest dealing, or any other act of moral turpitude. On or about May 7, 1996, the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, denied your application for a license as a mortgage broker for making a material misstatement of fact on their application. On or about December 8, 1992, after the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate conducted an investigation, you surrendered your license with that agency and entered into a written agreement stating that you agreed to have your license revoked. Accordingly, the Real Estate Commission did revoke your license in their meeting of January 19, 1993 effective December 8, 1992. The Investigative Report attached to the Final Order to revoke reveals that you were sued for dishonest conduct and subsequently, on March 25, 1992, ordered to pay Johannes Fruhwirt $7,800 plus post- judgment interest. This order was by the County Court of Broward County as a result of a Final Judgment, Case #9103333 CC53 and a Writ of Execution. The investigation revealed that Hester left the State of Florida without leaving word of his whereabouts. Apparently, that judgment was never satisfied. On May 14, 1991 you promised to pay $3000 to Leonard Schoenfeld when closing occurred on a home Mr. Schoenfeld was purchasing. Closing occurred shortly afterward, and you have never made that payment. On or about July 17, 1995, the State of Illinois received an Application Form to Operate as a Residential Mortgage Licensee in the name of Hester International, Inc. on which you were listed as 50% owner. You signed the “Verification” portion of that form and your signature was notarized on June 20, 1995 indicating that you verified as being true all data entered onto that form. However, you responded “N/A” to Part III, Question #10 which asks that you list all licenses which you or your firm have applied for and been denied and/or any and all licenses issued to you or your firm which were subsequently suspended or revoked. You therefore failed to disclose the revocation of your license with the Florida Division of Real Estate that occurred in 1992. On the same application filed with the State of Illinois, in response to Part III, question 19(m), you did not disclose that a judgment had been entered against you on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. The renewal for Hester International Inc., with the State of Illinois, states under the section labeled, “Averment of License” in item “s” that the licensee will advise the Commissioner in writing of any changes to the information submitted on the most recent application for license within 30 days of said change. The State of Illinois reports that you never disclosed the denial of a mortgage broker license in 1996 with the State of Florida . (i) On November 18, 2004 in an electronic filing for corporation reinstatement for Hester International, Inc., you certified that as Registered Agent you maintained an office at 6278 N. Federal Highway, Suite #305 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In fact, that address is a mail drop leased to one Carl Thames, CPA. The signage required by Section 48.091(2), Florida Statutes, does not appear, and you and Hester International, Inc. are unknown at this location. In pre-hearing interrogatories, the Office asked Petitioner to provide more information about the transaction involving the transaction that had led to the revocation of his real estate license, including the identity of those individuals. Even though the importance of accuracy was apparent since Petitioner was now in litigation, Petitioner, again, without investigating the facts and relying solely on his improving memory answered the interrogatories posed to him. In his answers, Petitioner identified the “customer” who had collected the money as Leonard Schoenfeld and the “renter” as Johannes Fruhwirt. Petitioner went on, in his answers, to describe the transaction with Mr. Schoenfeld and Mr. Fruhwirt. This description is similar to the explanation offered in the explanatory letters supplied for his earlier applications. In his response to Requests for Admissions, Petitioner denied that in May of 1991 he acted as a real estate broker in the auction of a home located at 14884 Equestrian Way in Wellington, Palm Beach County, Florida, and that he had been unable to deliver a mortgage at an agreed interest rate. Petitioner also denied that he had agreed to pay $3,000 for closing costs as deferred interest payments. Despite these denials, Petitioner admitted that he had signed an agreement to pay $3,000 to Mr. Schoenfeld. Petitioner explained these denials by claiming that these funds were never due because the agreement to pay $3,000 was contingent on closing. Since the real estate deal never closed, the $3,000 was never due. At his July 15, 2005, deposition, Petitioner essentially reaffirmed the inaccurate account of events in his interrogatory answers. At the deposition, Petitioner was asked to review documents related to the Schoenfeld transaction. Those documents included: (1) a copy of the May 14, 1991, agreement wherein he agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld $3,000, (2) a handwritten letter wherein he agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld the money that he owed him, and (3) a warranty deed on property purchased by Mr. Schoenfeld. When he was shown the May 14, 1991, agreement, Respondent testified that he did not know why he would have agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld $3,000. Even when he was shown the deed on the property and even though he had notarized the signatures on that deed, Petitioner maintained that the deal never closed and he never owed the $3000. At hearing, Petitioner’s various and growing explanations during discovery significantly differ from his testimony. Petitioner testified that throughout his various explanations he had confused and combined several individuals into one transaction. Even though he knew that the true facts of these transactions were important to consideration of his application and in answering discovery in this case, Petitioner did not make any real attempt to refresh his memory of these transactions until shortly before the hearing. In fact, the Schoenfeld and Fruhwirt transactions involved different real estate deals and had nothing to do with each other. The Schoenfeld transaction occurred in 1991 and involved the sale of real property located at 14884 Equestrian Way in Wellington, Florida. Mr. Schoenfeld was Petitioner’s customer. As part of the transaction, Petitioner guaranteed he could get a mortgage at a certain rate. After failing to get Mr. Schoenfeld a mortgage at a certain rate, Petitioner agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld $3,000 upon closing. When Petitioner failed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld the $3,000 on closing, he asked Mr. Schoenfeld if he could make payments of $200 a month. In a letter to Mr.Schoenfeld, Petitioner confirmed that he would pay Mr. Schoenfeld the amount that was owed. Petitioner made two payments and then stopped making payments. In a letter dated July 1, 1991, Mr. Schoenfeld complained about his dealings with Petitioner to the Division of Real Estate. A few days before Mr. Schoenfeld’s deposition on July 25, 2005, Petitioner paid Mr. Schoenfeld $2,600. Mr. Schoenfeld accepted the payment since the money was still owed to him. However, the payment had been delayed for 14 years and did not include interest for those years. Petitioner testified that he made the payment because, once he remembered the details of the transaction, he felt morally obligated to pay Mr. Schoenfeld what he had promised. However, fulfillment of this obligation also occurred with this litigation pending and after denials that any money was due Mr. Schoenfeld. In short, Petitioner did not pay Mr. Schoenfeld the money that was due him for 14 years until Petitioner was forced to acknowledge the true facts of the Schoenfeld transaction in this litigation. The Fruhwirt transaction involved a man named Mark Ritter who was a client of Petitioner. Mr. Fruhwirt met with Mark Ritter at a house he wanted to rent. Eventually, Mr. Ritter sent him to Petitioner to complete a lease agreement. Mr. Ritter did not know about leases and said Petitioner was a friend whose real estate office could set up the lease contract. Mr. Fruhwirt met Petitioner at his real estate office. Since it was lunchtime, they went to a nearby Burger King to finalize the lease. While at Burger King, Mr. Fruhwirt paid Petitioner $2,850 on the lease. Petitioner’s testified that he did not receive any money from Mr. Fruhwirt and did not accompany Mr. Fruhwirt to Burger King. Petitioner testified that Mr. Ritter and Mr. Fruhwirt met in his lobby and both went to Burger King to finalize the lease arrangement. However, given Petitioner’s past faulty memory, Petitioner’s testimony is not credible. At some point, Mr. Fruhwirt moved into the house. Subsequently, Mr. Fruhwirt received a letter from an attorney representing the real owner demanding that he vacate the premises. Mr. Fruhwirt then discovered that Mr. Ritter was not the owner and had to hire an attorney to sort out his continued occupancy of the property. Eventually Mr. Fruwhirt bought this property. Mr. Fruhwirt sued Petitioner and the real estate office for the recovery of the $2,850 he had paid to rent the house. Petitioner was found liable, but the real estate office was found not liable because the transaction happened off its premises at Burger King. On March 25, 1992, the Broward County Court entered a judgment of $7,800 against Petitioner, finding that Petitioner had “breached his duty to disclose that Mark Ritter was not the owner of the involved property.” After Mr. Fruhwirt obtained the judgment, Petitioner declared bankruptcy. Mr. Fruhwirt pursued an adversary action in Petitioner’s bankruptcy proceedings. Subsequently, the Bankruptcy Court cited “11 U.S.C. 523 A(2) and 11 U.S.C. 523 A(4)” and refused to discharge the judgment debt. The Bankruptcy Court’s Order refusing to discharge the debt clearly conflicts with Dr. Hester’s repeated implications and statements that this debt was discharged in bankruptcy. Unable to collect from Petitioner, Mr. Fruhwirt filed with the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund. The fund paid $2,850 to Mr. Fruhwirt and suspended Petitioner’s license. Mr. Fruhwirt used the money to defray some of his legal expenses. To date, Petitioner has not paid Mr. Fruhwirt any money on the judgment. The Fruwhirt transaction led to the revocation of Petitioner’s real estate license and, on January 19, 1993, the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a final order revoking Petitioner’s real estate license. Despite Petitioner’s testimony that he never received a copy of the documents, the certificate of service for the final order indicates it was sent to Petitioner at 1101 Hidden Cove, Salem, SC 29676, which was the address where Petitioner was living at that time. Again, Petitioner’s testimony is not credible. The Final Order referenced a December 8, 1992, agreement in which Petitioner agreed that his license would be revoked. In the December 8, 1992 agreement, entitled “Affidavit for the Voluntary Surrender of License, Registration, Certificate/Permit for Revocation,” signed by Petitioner, he agreed to the revocation of his license and to not apply for a new real estate license for ten years from the effective date of revocation. In particular, the December 8, 1992 agreement stated, “[t]he effective date of the revocation shall be upon signing this document.” Notwithstanding the clear language revoking the license, at the hearing, Petitioner maintained that because he had voluntarily surrendered his license, he did not believe his license had been revoked. In referring to the agreement he had signed, he testified that the agreement said, “that my license will be inactive, not revoked” and denied ever seeing the other documents revoking his license. This testimony is simply not credible and demonstrates Petitioner’s propensity to see or remember things in a way that is more flattering to him, irrespective of reality. The affidavit signed by Petitioner clearly stated that Petitioner’s license would be and was revoked upon signing. In 1995, Hester International applied to operate as a residential mortgage licensee in Illinois. The application identified Petitioner as the vice president and Sharon Hester as the president. Page one of the application indicated the application had to be executed “by two officers or all directors if the applicant/licensee is a corporation.” The application was signed by Petitioner and his wife. Petitioner did not disclose to Illinois that a judgment had been entered against him in Florida or that his real estate license had been revoked or suspended. Question 10 in Part III of the Application asked: “LIST ALL LICENSES WHICH YOU OR YOUR FIRM HAVE APPLIED FOR AND BEEN DENIED AND/OR ANY AND ALL LICENSES ISSUED TO YOU OR YOUR FIRM WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SUSPENDED OR REVOKED.” Petitioner responded “N/A.” (Id.). Question 19(m) in Part III of the Application asked: UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I(WE) STATE THAT ALL OF THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY (OUR) KNOWLEDGE AND FURTHER STATE THAT AS THE APPLICANT/LICENSEE: . . . (m) Has not committed a crime against the law of this State, any other state or the United States, involving moral turpitude, fraudulent or dishonest dealing, and that no final judgment has been entered against it in a civil action upon grounds of fraud, misrepresentation or deceit which has not previously been reported to the Commissioner. The evidence did not demonstrate that the emphasized clauses in question 10 or the “I(WE)” in 19(m) direct such questions to individuals signing the application. One reasonable interpretation of the language is that the questions are directed to the business entity applying for the license. In short, the I(WE) language is simply language in a form meant to cover multiple types of business entities ranging from sale proprietorships to corporations. Therefore, Petitioner was not required by Illinois to disclose matters which involved him personally. To date, Illinois has not filed any disciplinary action against Petitioner or Hester International. Thus, the failure to disclose personal judgments or license actions to Illinois in a corporate application for licensure does not support a finding of dishonesty or denial of Respondent’s application at issue here. At some point, Hester International’s corporate status had to be reinstated in Florida. Petitioner reinstated the company’s corporate status in November of 2004. Petitioner filed as registered agent at 6278 North Federal Highway #305, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Petitioner had not lived at this address for some 15 years, but had lived there for seven years with his girlfriend. The evidence showed that Petitioner simply forgot to change the registered agent’s address and was not acting dishonestly. Once he discovered his mistake, Petitioner amended his filing to reflect the appropriate address. Again, these facts do not form a basis to deny Petitioner’s license application. Finally, Petitioner testified that until Spring 2005, he and his wife were 50/50 owners of Hester International, Inc., as reflected on the application and license renewals in Illinois. In September 2004, Ms. Hester submitted Hester International, Inc.’s application for Florida licensure as a mortgage broker business. The Hester International business application was submitted after the Office had denied Petitioner’s license application in 1996 and was scrutinizing his July 2004 application. In the application, Ms. Hester identified herself as 100 percent owner of the Hester International. Petitioner did review this application, but he intentionally did not take part in its filing. The purported change in ownership was not adequately explained at hearing and appears to have been done in order to forestall any problems with licensure of the corporation due to Petitioner’s participation in the corporation. While the change of ownership is troubling, given Petitioner’s history, and also adds to the evidence that Petitioner is less than forthright in his memory and past business dealings, the change of ownership for the corporation’s licensure application does not, by itself, support a denial of Petitioner’s application. On the other hand, too many inconsistencies exist between Petitioner’s hearing testimony and his earlier accounts to conclude that Respondent can be trusted to hold a mortgage brokerage license. At worst, the evidence shows that Petitioner is not truthful or acts with integrity. At best, the evidence shows that Respondent has the ability to convince himself of facts that do not quite fit the truth, but are more flattering to him. Under either scenario, Petitioner’s appreciation of honesty, truthfulness and integrity are suspect. Neither Petitioner’s letters supporting his good character, nor his success in his ministry demonstrates sufficient rehabilitation to overcome what appears to be long-time evasive behavior. Therefore, Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Scott Hester, Esquire 13843 Longs Landing Road East Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Gregg Morton, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0376 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Fleming 1653 Bass Avenue Seville, Florida 32191 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Post Office Box 8050 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8050 Alex Hager, Acting Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Mortgage Broker License No. 3534 should be suspended or revoked under Section 494.05, F.S. At the hearing, the Respondent filed an answer to the charges in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, incorporating therein affirmative defenses. Rule 28-5.25(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the party may file an Answer which may contain affirmative defenses within 20 days of service of the Petition. Respondent's basis for late filing was inadvertence and neglect of its counsel. The Answer contained a general denial of the allegations and set forth affirmative defenses asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Petitioner to pursue its claims for alleged actions which took place on or before October 19, 1974, which was prior to the issuance of the mortgage broker license to Respondent. Further defenses included the claim that the Administrative Charges and Complaint are vague and ambiguous, that Petitioner had taken written action against Respondent without a hearing and denied it due process of law prior to the filing of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, thereby constituting double jeopardy, that Petitioner has unilaterally and without hearing denied Respondent renewal of its license, therefore denying it due process of law and claiming that petitioner is estopped from proceeding on the ground that it violated Section 494.06(5), in not keeping confidential the examination and investigation of the Respondent by giving press releases designed to influence the outcome of the hearing. The Hearing Officer permitted the late filing of the Answer and Affirmative Defenses at the hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner who claimed lack of notice as to the affirmative defenses. Respondent made a motion at the hearing to quash or abate the charges on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction on the basis set forth in its aforesaid pleading and on the grounds that Section 494.05(1) permits the petitioner only to investigate actions of licensees and not to suspend or revoke such licenses. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer under the authority granted to deny, suspend or revoke licenses pursuant to Section 494.05, F.S. From statements of counsel at the hearing, it appears that Respondent's application for yearly renewal of its license was denied by Petitioner on September 3, 1975. However premature such a denial might have been, the question is not in issue in the instant proceeding. Nor is any purported violation by Petitioner of Section 494.06(5), concerning confidentiality of its investigations of Respondent. Both parties made opening statements and closing arguments. The Petitioner presented its case through two witnesses and submitted documentary evidence. The Respondent did not call, any witnesses. Petitioner also called Frank H. Roark, Jr. President of Respondent Corporation as a witness. Mr. Roark, after being sworn, declined to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination. The Hearing Officer thereupon excused the witness. Upon a showing by the Petitioner that the books and records of Respondent Corporation had been requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum and its request that Mr. Roark be required to identify the corporate books and records in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, over objection of Respondent's counsel, the Hearing Officer permitted Mr. Roark to testify for this limited purpose.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Banking and Finance of the State of Florida issued Mortgage Broker License Number 3534 to Respondent on October 10, 1974 (Petition and Answer). The transactions of the Respondent which are the subject of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, concern the purchase by investors/lenders of corporate promissory notes issued by a land development company which are secured by mortgages on its land. The purpose of selling the note is for the land development company to raise funds for the development of real property. The sales of the notes were made by Respondent to individual investors. Usually these transactions were handled through what was termed a "Master Broker" who was a middle man between the land developer and the Respondent mortgage broker which actually made the individual sales of the notes. Typical of the manner in which Respondent conducted these transactions was to enter into an agreement with an investor termed an "Application To Purchase a Mortgage" for a certain face amount at a specified interest rate with interest payable monthly and with concurrent delivery by the investor to Respondent of the stated sum under the conditions that the note would be executed, the mortgage recorded, and the note and recorded mortgage delivered to the investor-purchaser. In due course, a promissory note issued by the land development corporation (the borrower), was delivered to the investor, along with a mortgage deed to specified real property to secure the note. Some notes were payable on an interest only basis and some on a principal and interest basis. Some involved the issuance of title insurance policies and others did not. In some cases, Respondent remitted funds involved in the transaction to the "Master Broker" and in some cases directly to the land developer, less an amount retained by Respondent, ostensibly for its fees, commissions, and/or other charges. The funds were placed into escrow bank accounts when they were received from the investors by Respondent and then sometimes on the same day or in most cases several days or weeks later, the funds less the amount retained by Respondent, were forwarded on to the "Master Broker" or directly to the developer (testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3 & 4). Acting upon a request of the State Comptroller to have all mortgage companies examined, in the latter part of July, 1975, Mr. Lawrence W. Hunt, a Financial Examiner Supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Finance along with three assistants went to the Respondent's office to examine its records and determine from the examination whether or not violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act had been committed. Utilizing source documents from the company records, Mr. Hunt and his associates prepared a worksheet and listed thereon various items of information gleaned from these records (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). After preparation of the worksheet, overcharges as to the 402 transactions identified in the worksheet were computed by Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, Deputy Director of the Division of Finance, solely from the worksheet obtained by the examiners (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Such overcharges were computed with respect to maximum fees or commissions which a broker could charge in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3-3.08, Florida Administrative Code, in consideration of the amount of funds retained by Respondent, Mr. Hunt is not a state auditor and his examination of records did not go into the depth of an audit such a compilation of financial statements. His work consists basically of an examination which involves obtaining information from corporate records and placing it on worksheets so it can be analyzed. During Mr. Hunt's visit to Respondent's place of business, he received full cooperation of its officers and employees and found the records to be in good order. He also had no reason to question any of the entries in any of the records that he observed. Neither he nor Mr. Ehrlich had received complaints from any individual or organization about Respondent's operations prior to his visit. He did not at any time contact any of the lenders or borrowers involved in Respondent's transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2). On October 11, 1974, the Division of Finance issued a "Memorandum to all Mortgage Brokers" in which it was stated that it had been brought to the Division's attention that a number of mortgage brokers in transactions (such as those under consideration here), were remitting investors' funds to the land developer rather than placing the funds in an escrow account, and that such funds were being remitted in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note. The Memorandum warned that this practice could result in substantial losses to the broker in repaying investors should the land developer fail and was also in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act and could lead to the suspension or revocation of a license under Section 494.05, (1)(f), Florida Statutes. This section concerns placement of funds received in escrow accounts where they shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized (Respondent's Exhibit A). The Memorandum was sent to Respondent among others Mr. Hunt, during his examination of Respondent's records, found that Respondent ,had changed its escrow procedures approximately the date that the bulletin was issued and that there were no discrepancies after that date concerning escrow monies. By further correspondence in December, 1974, and May and June of 1975, Respondent's President posed various questions to Mr. Ehrlich to clarify certain aspects of escrow account requirements and received replies thereto (Respondent Composite B - Respondent's Exhibit C, D, F and G. (Note: There is no Exhibit E) In 402 separate transactions conducted by Respondent during the years 1973, 1974, and 1975, the mortgages which were purchased by the investors were delivered to the investor within varying periods from one day from the sale date until almost two months from the sale date. Forwarding of funds by the Respondent to the "Master Broker" or to the land development company was also accomplished in these transactions within varying periods of time from the sale date. These ranged from the same date as the sale to periods of a month or so thereafter, but usually on the date of delivery of the mortgage to the investor. The amounts forwarded by Respondent consisted of the face amount of the note and mortgage, less a certain amount which was retained by the Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). No effort was made by Petitioner's examiner to determine either the basis for the amount retained by Respondent or its composition. For example, he did not determine whether there were any "points" for service charges or discounts of any sort included in the retained sum. The examination was made solely on the basis of examining the business records of Respondent which did not reflect a breakdown of the retained amount. However, it could be deduced from various documents in individual investor files that certain amounts had been paid by someone unknown for title insurance premiums, recording fees and intangible taxes. The dates of mortgage delivery shown by Mr. Hunt in his worksheet were dates which he assumed were correct but he had not verified by any person the exact dates the mortgage was delivered to the investors. Neither could he ascertain from the records whether or not an investor had authorized Respondent to disburse funds at a particular time. The overcharges were determined in accordance with the formula set forth in Rule 3- 3.08, F.A.C., which is on a "gross proceeds" loan in which the borrower indicates that he wished to borrow a specified amount with all fees and charges to come out of the gross amount, thereby resulting in a reduced amount being provided to the borrower. The overcharges were computed without knowledge of whether the amount retained by the Respondent, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, included payment for state intangible tax, documentary stamps, and recording fees (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and 2). The overcharges set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 were unrebutted by Respondent and are deemed correct. In a transaction between Respondent and Cary G. Anderson, who applied for purchase of a mortgage on May 7, 1974, in the face amount of $3,500.00, the file relating to the transaction did not reflect the amount of any costs to be paid by Respondent in the matter, nor did it reveal a specific figure for brokerage fee or commission charged by Respondent. The file did reflect a bill for title insurance premium in the amount of $45.00 and recording fees in the amount off $22.25, $5.25 documentary stamps, and $7.00 for intangible tax. The amount of overcharge was $175.46. In another $2,500 transaction with Mr. Anderson, the amount remitted to the land developer was $2,075.00. The amount retained by Respondent was $425.00. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 establishes an overcharge from this transaction of $61.37. There was no copy of the mortgage in the file and therefore no information upon which to determine the payment of intangible taxes, documentary stamps and recording fees (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In a $5,000 transaction between Walter L. and Thelma T. Beach and Respondent with application for purchase mortgage dated July 30, 1974, a check was written on Respondent's escrow account to Kingsland Development in the amount of $4,100. The maximum allowable brokerage fee or commission under the law would have been $590.90. The amount retained by Respondent was $900.00. The mortgage indicated that documentary stamps in the amount of $7.50 and intangible tax of $10.00 were paid. Assuming that Respondent paid the intangible taxes, and documentary stamps, the excess fee charged according to calculation under Rule 3-3.08, was $281.60 (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4). In respect to the above three transactions Petitioner's examiner did not find closing statements in the file, nor did he go to the Florida title ledger or Attorney's ledger of Respondent's records. However, he had, at the outset of his investigation, asked Respondent to make available all records concerning the transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt is the President of Respondent Action Mortgage Corporation and is the person designated to act on behalf of said corporation under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Action Mortgage Corporation currently holds a mortgage brokerage license. The individual mortgage broker license issued to respondent Clampitt expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. Respondent Joseph W. Langford currently holds a license as a mortgage solicitor for and on behalf of Home Mortgage Investment Corporation. His prior individual mortgage broker license expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. COUNT I The respondents were counter codefendants in a civil suit filed in the Circuit Court of Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of the Florida in and for Pinellas County, which case was numbered 78-12033-18 and styled Action Mortgage Corporation, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Denture Services, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants. On February 8, 1980, a Final Judgment was entered in that proceeding by Circuit Court Judge David Seth Walker. Judge Walker found, as a matter of fact, that a limited confidential/fiduciary relationship existed between Langford and the counter-plaintiffs, and opined that certain activities on the part of the individual counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The Court, inter alis, awarded the counter-plaintiffs Final Judgment in the nominal sum of $1.00, plus costs. It was noted that the claim of the counter-plaintiffs for punitive damages had previously been denied. Subsequent to the Final Judgment enteed in Case No. 78-12033-18, the counter-plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing on the matter of punitive damages, since the Court had noted in its Final Judgment that the activities of the counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The counter- defendants (respondents herein) also moved the Court to alter or amend its Final Judgment so as to remove the fraud language quoted above. By Order filed on March 10, 1980, both motions were denied by Judge Walker. Judge Walker's deposition was taken on August 22, 1980, and was received into evidence in this proceeding as petitioner's Exhibit 9. Referring to the language in the Final Judgment "bedecked with the badge of fraud," Judge Walker makes the following comments: "I do not interpret that as a finding of fraud absolute, but just that there were indicia of fraud." (p.4) "But I did not consider this to be an absolute finding of fraud. I think I mentioned that on one of the motions that the counter-plaintiffs made to reconsider the judgment of $1.00 or the refusal to grant punitive damages. I reiterated at that hearing that I found that it was an indicia, but I did not go so far in my own mind as to specifically find fraud." (p. 4) "If I had wanted to find specifically that they were in fact guilty of fraud, I would have said as much. The phrase, in my mind, 'bedecked with a badge of fraud,' is meant to suggest the indicia of fraud. Fraud is a legal conclusion that must be based upon several legally accepted circumstances. And in law school we learned the term, 'badges of fraud.' But a badge of fraud does not per se constitute fraud. I didn't feel that I needed to go too deeply in the questions, because of my finding that the counter-plaintiffs had not in fact suffered any real damage." (pp. 7 and 8) "I listed a certain series of circmustances and activities which had taken place, rather specifically. And I found that these activities and circumstances were bedecked by the badge of fraud which is admittedly a little bit flowery for normal language, but that's what I said. I did not specifically find fraud. Fraud always carries with it the badges of fraud in and of it- self does not collaterally, and on the other hand mean that fraud exists. I did not go that far in this particular judgment. I did not feel I had to." (pp. 18 and 19) "I did not feel that it was necessary for the Court to delve into the ultimate determination of fraud." (p. 20) "I do not perceive that my final judgment made an absolute finding of fraud. Again, the phrase, 'badge of fraud,' simply menas to me an indicia of fraud, and I'm confortable with the finding that that indicia is there. But as far as a finding of fraud is concerned, I did not proceed to that point, and it's not there." (pp. 20 and 21) COUNT II In 1978, Dorothy L. Jones and Byron A. Jones were the owners of real property located at 2656 Granada Circle East in St. Petersburg, Florida. The first mortgage on that property held by Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc. or the Mortgage Corporation of the South, was in default and a foreclosure action, and is pendens against the property had been filed. The monthly mortgage payments were approximately $225. At that time, Dorothy Jones was separated from her husband, lived in the home with her five minor children and was having financial difficulties. Having seen a newspaper advertisement, Dorothy Jones contacted the Respondents in an effort to obtain a second mortgage or additional funds with which to pay her debts and preserve her homestead. Neither of the Respondents agreed to make a second mortgage loan to Mrs. Jones. Instead, they agreed to make an outright purchase of the Jones's residence and lease the property back to Dorothy Jones at a monthly payment which approximated her prior monthly mortgage payment. The lease payments were later increased to $275 per month due to the loss of homestead exemption on the property. It was Mrs. Jones' understanding that she would be given the opportunity to repurchase the home at less than fair market value though she may have to pay a down payment and higher monthly payments. No appraisal was performed on the property. The closing of the transaction took place at a title company, independent of the Respondents. Mrs. Jones understood that she was signing a deed to the property and other documents transferring title to Respondents. The property was purchased by the Respondents in February of 1978 for $23,656.54 and the transfer was made subject to the mortgage to Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc., in the amount of $21,848.44. No funds were paid to Mr. or Mrs. Jones at the time of closing. During the months which followed, Dorothy Jones fell far behind in her lease payments to the Respondents. In May of 1979, Respondent Langford notified Mrs. Jones that the property owners had elected to sell the property in the near future, and advised her to contact his office if she was still interested in purchasing the property. In July of 1979, Dorothy Jones filed a Complaint against the Respondents in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County seeking a declaratory decree as to her rights under the aforementioned deed, lease and oral agreement to repurchase the property. (Civil No. 79-7307-17). Mrs. Jones was represented by an attorney in that action. By Order filed on July 29, 1980, the Circuit Court approved the terms and conditions of a Stipulation entered into by the Respondents and Mrs. Jones whereby Mrs. Jones was given the opportunity to purchase the subject property from the Respondents for $32,000 within 90 days, and was also required to pay back rental payments to the Respondents. For some reason not clear from the evidence adduced in the proceeding, Mrs. Jones did not repurchase the property from the Respondents. By Final Judgment filed on October 15, 1980, Mrs. Jones' claim against the Respondents was dismissed with prejudice and Respondents were awarded a judgment against Mrs. Jones in the amount of $2,887.50. Apparently, an eviction action in the County Court for Pinellas County resulted in the award of possession of the home to the Respondents. Mrs. Jones vacated the subject property in October of 1980. In April of 1981, Respondents sold the subject property to Harold and Peralita Odlam for a purchase price of $41,7000. COUNT III Respondent Clampitt was licensed as an individual mortgage broker for the years 1978 and 1979. His 1979 license expired on August 31, 1979, as did the license of Action Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Clampitt made an attempt to renew his individual mortgage broker license on October 16, 1979. The renewal license for Action Mortgage Corporation also bears the date of October 16, 1979. During the period of time between August 31, 1979 (the date upon which his individual mortgage broker license expired) and October 16, 1979 (the date upon which said renewal license was issued), respondent, Clampitt, as an individual mortgage broker, received at least three mortgage brokerage fees or commissions. A broker is considered to be licensed by the petitioner when a completed application form accompanied by the correct fee is received by the petitioner. It is the petitioner's practice to mail out renewal application to its approximately 6,500 licensees on July 15 of each year with the request that they be returned by August 15. All licenses expire on August 31 and are reissued for the following year to be effective from September 1 to August 31. Those applications which are received by the petitioner after August 31 bear a different license date. The correct amount to be remitted for the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license was $125-- a $75 license fee and a $50 guaranty fund fee. The $190 check received by the petitioner from the respondent on or before August 31, 1979, was accompanied by three renewal application cards. The petitioner did not apply $125 of the $190 to the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license because petitioner could not ascertain how the respondent desired to have the funds applied. Although a small minority of licensees do not renew their licenses in a timely fashion, it is not the practice of the petitioner to directly notify a licensee that his license has expired. Respondent Clampitt did hold a license with an effective date of September 13, 1979, as an additional broker for Fickling and Walker, Inc. in Winter Park, Florida. Under this license, respondent Clampitt would have no authority to act individually or on behalf of anyone other than Fickling and Walker, Inc. COUNT IV Respondent Clampitt arranged for a loan to a Mr. and Mrs. Fink. When examining the respondent's books, petitioner's financial examiner was unable to account for an apparent overcharge of $13.80 for credit life insurance on the loan. The examiner did not examine the loan closing documents with regard to this transaction. The evidence establishes that there had been a clerical error in the respondent's office concerning this transaction, that the cost of the credit life insurance had been miscalculated and that respondent Clampitt was entitled to the $13.80. COUNT V It is the practice of the respondent Clampitt to interview his clients over the telephone, look at the involved property and then, if he agrees to make a loan, send the client to a title insurance company to sign the necessary papers. These papers include a loan closing statement, the required RESPA statement and a recision notice which allows the customer to cancel the transaction within 72 hours without cost or obligation. Thereafter, generally five to seven days later, the customer returns to the title company to receive the loan proceeds. Respondent Clampitt does not take deposits and most often does not even meet this clients on a face-to-face basis. All borrower disclosures and rights required by law are provided respondent's clients by the title insurance company.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on March 23, 1981, against Joseph W. Langford be DISMISSED; The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on February 3, 1981, against Action Mortgage Corporation be DISMISSED; Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Charges and Complaint filed against Ronald E. Clampitt on February 3, 1981, be DISMISSED; and Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt be found guilty of accepting fees at a time when his individual license had expired, but, because of the unintentional violation of the pertinent statutory provisions, no disciplinary action be imposed for this offense. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of July, 1981, 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 27th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter W. Wood Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Dew and Jay Emory Wood Harris, Barrett and Dew Post Office Drawer 1441 600 Florida National Bank Building St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the charges, the Respondent Joyce A. Chandler, was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0348072. Respondent's license was suspended for a period of one year pursuant to a Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission on August 4, 1983, which became effective September 3, 1983. To date, the Respondent has failed to take steps necessary to reactivate her license and she remains in a suspended status. Gerald and Mary Anne Jennings were the owners of a home located at 15413 S.W. 105th Avenue, Miami, Florida. There was a first mortgage on the home held by Stockton, Whatley and Davin. In the early part of 1981, the Jennings were experiencing financial difficulties and in an effort to help pay off debts secured a second mortgage in the amount of $15,000.00 from Davide and Associates, Inc. This mortgage from Davide and Associates, Inc., was a wrap-around mortgage making the total obligation (Stockton, Whatley and Davin plus Davide) approximately $44,000.00. In August of 1981, Davide and Associates, Inc. sold the wrap-around mortgage to Mr. and Mrs. Leon Shiff. In January of 1983, the Jennings made a decision to sell their home as they were having difficulty making payments to Shiff. The Jennings contacted Mr. Shiff and informed them of their decision, and Mr. Shiff attempted to secure prospective purchasers for them. On or about January 30, 1983, the Respondent Chandler made an offer to purchase the Jennings home, which offer was rejected by the Jennings. On or about February 2, 1983, the Respondent made a second offer to purchase the Jennings home which offer was accepted. The terms of this February 2, 1983 contract provided that the Respondent was to give sufficient funds to the Jennings to catch up on all mortgage arrearages, tender to the Jennings approximately $4,000.00 in cash, and the Jennings were to take back a third mortgage in the amount of $4,000.00. Respondent, in turn, was to assume the Stockton, Whatley and Davin mortgage and agreed to pay off the Shiff mortgage within 90 days. The Jennings desired to return to West Virginia immediately. Therefore, the Respondent promised and represented to the Jennings that she would secure tenants to occupy the residence while she attempted to obtain the necessary financing and to close the transaction and would use the proceeds from the rental money to make all mortgage payments. On or about February 22, 1983, the Respondent and the Jennings signed yet a third contract. Said contract has not been produced and the location of it is unknown. On this same date, the Respondent had the Jennings sign, in blank, a Warranty Deed. The Respondent represented to the Jennings that the Warranty Deed was nothing more than a Power of Attorney which enabled the Respondent to rent the house and use the rental money to make the mortgage payments while the Respondent sought the financing per the terms of the contract. Based on the Respondent's representations and promises, the Jennings vacated the residence and stopped making mortgage payments. Thereafter, the Respondent secured a Mr. and Mrs. Hill as tenants for the property. Mr. and Mrs. Hill came to the Respondent as tenants from Prudential Life Insurance Company. Mr. and Mrs. Hill had recently experienced damage to their home due to a fire and the Respondent secured rental property for the Hills on behalf of Prudential. In regards to this matter, Prudential paid via a double party check made payable to Robert Hill and Princess International, Inc. $1,950.00. The Respondent goes by the name of P. J. Chandler, Princess Chandler, Princess international and Princess International, Inc. These tenants remained in the Jennings' home for approximately two months. The Respondent made no mortgage payments to either Stockton, Whatley and Davin or to Mr. Shiff for the period of February 1983 to August 1983. Further, the last mortgage payment made was for the January payment delivered to Mr. Shiff by Mrs. Jennings. In order to keep the first mortgage in good standing with Stockton, Whatley and Davin, Mr. Shiff took it upon himself to make these mortgage payments although he was receiving no mortgage payments on the wrap-around from Mr. & Mrs. Jennings or the Respondent. In June of 1983, Mr. Shiff enlisted the aid of Herman Isis, attorney at law, to begin foreclosure proceedings on the residence. In August of 1983, the residence was sold to Shiff at the foreclosure sale. Thereafter, a certificate of title was received by Mr. Shiff in regards to said foreclosure purchase. The Jennings received only $3,248.00 from the Respondent as opposed to the approximate $8,000.00 contract amount. The transaction never closed as promised by the Respondent. Finally, the Respondent failed to make the necessary mortgage payments as represented and promised by her to the Jennings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Joyce A. Chandler's license as a real estate broker be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Graves, Esquire 315 S.E. Seventh Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold Huff Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division), is the state agency charged with administering the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund (fund) codified in Sections 494.042 through 494.045, Florida Statutes (1987). Among other things, the Division processes claims for payment from the fund by persons who were parties to a mortgage financing transaction and who have suffered monetary damages as a result of a violation of the law by a licensed mortgage broker. In this case, the perpetrator was Stackhouse Mortgage Corporation (Stackhouse), which held mortgage brokerage license number HB-0006527 from September 19, 1976 through August 31, 1986 and operated at least part of that time in the Brevard County area. In order to perfect a successful claim and be assured of participating in the distribution of moneys from the fund, a person must satisfy a number of statutory criteria within a specified time period after the first notice is filed. This proceeding involves a number of claims by various parties who suffered monetary damages as a result of the illicit acts of Stackhouse. The principal factual issues are whether petitioners, Robert Motes, Machiko Motes, Madge Chesser and Christiane E. Driscoll, all claimants, satisfied the required statutory criteria within the specified time period, and whether the first valid and complete notice of a claim was filed on January 20, 1987 as maintained by the Division, or occurred on a later date as urged by petitioners. These issues are crucial to petitioners' interests since the amount of money to be distributed from the fund for all claimants (on a pro rata basis) is $100,000, and all of that money has been proposed to be distributed to intervenors and other claimants because of the alleged untimeliness of petitioners' claims. The Stackhouse matter first came to the Division's attention on January 20, 1987 when it received by certified mail a letter containing a copy of a complaint filed against Stackhouse by intervenors, Richard S. and Althea M. Rucki, in the circuit court of the eighteenth judicial circuit in and for Brevard County. This filing constituted the first valid and complete notice of the matter. As such, it triggered a two year time period in which other claimants had to file such notice with the Division and then satisfy all statutory criteria in order to share in the first, and in this case the only, distribution of moneys from the fund. Intervenors eventually obtained a summary final judgment against Stackhouse on January 10, 1989 in the amount of $27,200 plus $1,972 in interest, $76 in court costs, and $2,000 in attorney's fees. Copies of the judgment, unsatisfied writ of execution and affidavit of diligent search were filed with the Division on January 19, 1989, or within two years from the date the first notice was filed. After the Rucki notice was filed, a number of claimants, including the other intervenors, filed their notices with the Division within the two year time period and thereafter satisfied all pertinent statutory criteria. Their names, dates of filing their final claims with the Division, and amounts of final judgment, including costs and fees, are listed below in the order in which the claimants filed their first notice with the Division: Claimant Date of Filing Claim Amount of judgment Roberts January 19, 1989 $84,562.30 Rucki January 19, 1989 31,248.00 Gantz January 19, 1989 15,634.28 Carman January 19, 1989 48,767.87 Thomas July 21, 1988 40,103.22 Hahn January 19, 1989 14,165.14 Ulriksson January 18, 1989 14,497.00 Choate January 18, 1989 28,994.00 Anderson December 22, 1988 84,443.20 Resnick December 22, 1988 32,912.22 It is noted that each of the foregoing claimants satisfied all statutory requirements prior to the date of the filing of their respective final claims with the Division. This included the obtaining of a judgment against the debtor, having a writ of execution issued upon the judgment which was later returned unsatisfied, and thereafter having made a reasonable search and inquiry to ascertain whether the judgment debtor possessed any property or other assets to be used in satisfying the judgment. Based upon the judgments obtained by the above claimants, those persons are entitled to distribution from the fund in the following pro rata amounts: Anderson claim - $10,950.00 Resnick claim - 10,950.00 Carman claim - 10,950.00 Thomas claim - 10,950.00 Ulriksson claim - 7,937.83 Choate claim - 10,950.00 Roberts claim - 10,950.00 Gantz claim - 7,697.63 Hahn claim - 7,714.54 Rucki claim - 10,950.00 $100.000.00 On July 27, 1988 petitioners, Robert and Machiko Motes and Madge Chesser, filed their notices with the Division. On August 2, 1988, they were advised by the Division that "the first time period for payment of the Guaranty Fund claims is `two years after the first claim.'" Even so, petitioners did not complete all required statutory steps and file their final claims with the Division until March 1, 1989, or after the two year period had expired. Petitioner, Christiane E. Driscoll, filed her notice, copy of complaint and final judgment on January 23, 1989. Thereafter, she completed all required statutory steps and filed her final claim with the Division on June 6, 1989. As a consequence, none of petitioners are entitled to share in the first distribution of moneys from the fund. An attorney who once represented Driscoll, Rafael A. Burguet, made inquiry by telephone with a Division employee in either late December 1988 or early January 1989 concerning the steps required to process a claim on behalf of his client. It was his recollection that the Division employee did not advise him that the two year period for perfecting claims was triggered in January 1987. On January 20, 1989, Burguet sent a letter to the Division with a copy of the complaint and final judgment against Stackhouse. In the letter, he requested the Division to "please advise as to what further requirements you may have to file this claim." On January 23, 1989 a Division employee acknowledged by letter that the Division had received the complaint and judgment. The letter contained copies of the relevant portions of the Florida Statutes and advice that "claims for recovery against Stackhouse Mortgage Corporation are currently being forwarded to our Legal Department for the drafting of a Notice of Intent to either grant or deny payment from the Fund." There is no evidence that the Division made any positive representations to Burguet that either mislead him or caused him to delay in filing his claim. Similarly, the Division responded on August 2, 1988 to the initial filing of the Motes and Chesser notices with advice that the time period for complying with the statutory criteria was "two years after the first claim." Although there were subsequent telephone conversations (but no written communications) between their attorney and the Division, there was no evidence that the Division made any positive representations that would mislead petitioners or otherwise cause them to delay processing their claims. Petitioners Motes and Chesser contend that the first valid and complete notice was not received by the Division until May 20, 1987 when intervenor Carman filed a complaint against Stackhouse in circuit court and also filed her claim and copy of the complaint with the Division the same date. Under this theory, the two year period would not expire until May 19, 1989. This contention is based on the fact that the Rucki complaint was filed in circuit court on January 9, 1987 but the claim and copy of the complaint were not filed with the Division until January 20, 1987. Petitioners contend that subsection 494.043(1)(e) requires both acts to be accomplished the same date. However, this construction of the statute is contrary to the manner in which it has been construed by the Division. According to the stipulated testimony of an employee of the Brevard County sheriff's office, if the property to be levied on is not listed on the instructions to levy, the sheriff's office requires a court order prior to filing a return nulla bona. In this case seven claimants obtained such a court order directing the sheriff to furnish a return nulla bona as to the writ of execution. However, petitioners Motes and Chesser did not do so until after the two year time period had expired. The records received in evidence reflect that the initial inquiry made by Robert and Virginia R. Enteen was never pursued and therefore their claim should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order distributing the moneys from the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund in a manner consistent with its proposed agency action entered on June 21, 1989. The requests of petitioners to share in the first distribution of moneys from the fund should be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, (Department), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers in this state, and Respondent, Harriet Ijames, was a licensed mortgage broker. On February 17, 1989, Respondent entered into a Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department whereby she was placed on probation for 2 years for misconduct relating to the misappropriation of mortgage application fees, with the further requirement that she not act independently but under the supervision of a broker acceptable to the Department. On October 2, 1991, the Department filed a complaint against the Respondent alleging she had violated the terms of the prior Consent Order by conducting business as a mortgage broker without the requisite supervision. Thereafter, on April 29, 1992, Respondent entered into another Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department regarding the October, 1991 complaint by which she was again placed on probation conditioned upon her operating only under the supervision of an approved broker. This latter Order provided that any violation thereof would be automatic grounds for immediate and summary revocation of her license and also imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00. The Final Order incorporating that agreement was issued by the Department on July 13, 1992. In May, 1992, Respondent was contacted by Rhudine M. McGhee, a resident of Tampa, who had been referred to her by a mutual acquaintance. Mrs. McGhee indicated she was interested in purchasing another house. Somewhat later, Respondent contacted Mrs. McGhee and told her of a friend who had a house for sale. She also gave Mrs. McGhee the addresses of some other houses in the area which were for sale. Mrs. McGhee did not like any of them. Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker, and that she would have a real estate broker contact her. Respondent also offered to provide Mrs. McGhee with listings of Resolution Trust Corporation foreclosures in the desired price range. Some time later, the broker referred by Respondent showed Mrs. McGhee a house she liked and she signed a contract to buy it. In the interim, Respondent had taken a credit application from the McGhees over the phone and followed up with a visit to the McGhee home. On May 13, 1992, during the visit to the McGhee residence, Respondent had Mrs. McGhee sign a loan application. On that same visit, she solicited and received from Mrs. McGhee a check for $300.00, payable to the Respondent and subsequently endorsed and cashed by her, which reflected the check was the application fee for a loan. She specifically asked that the check be made to her, personally. When Mrs. McGhee asked Respondent about the check, she was told it would be credited to the purchase price at time of closing. This was not done and it was only later, after a complaint was filed with the Department, that Mr. Brigliadora, the mortgage broker with whom she was affiliated, repaid the fee from his company's funds. Though at hearing Respondent denied she took a loan application fee or that the check she received was for that purpose or bore any notation to that effect when received, Mrs. McGhee is quite certain she put that notation on the check at her husband's direction at the time she gave it to Respondent. Respondent claimed the check was for finding the house but Mr. McGhee specifically recalls Respondent indicating the check was to be an application fee to be credited against the purchase price. It is so found. On June 1, 1992, Respondent again returned to the McGhee home to have them sign a second loan application. This time Mr. McGhee was not at home and Respondent suggested to Mrs. McGhee that she sign her husband's name to the application. This was done. Respondent did not give the McGhees copies of the applications they signed but said she would bring them copies at a later date. This was never done. Though Respondent also denies soliciting the second application, her apparent signature appears on both application forms and it is found she did both solicit and sign the forms and the application fee check. The first application was for a loan of $80,000.00 at 8.5 percent. The second was for $36,000.00 at 8.625 percent. At the time of the solicitation, Respondent was employed by Frank Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker and owner of the Money Tree Mortgage Co. However, neither Respondent nor Mr. Brigliadora had notified the Department of their arrangement or obtained Departmental approval of the supervisory relationship. Clearly, Respondent knew the taking of an application fee, as the evidence indicates she did here, was inappropriate. Sometime in mid 1992, Respondent approached George Banks, a licensed mortgage broker in Tampa and owner of his own brokerage company, with a view toward working for him. In their conversation about that, they discussed the practice of application fees. Respondent indicated she wanted to take a fee of $200.00 to $300.00 up front, but Banks felt this was not proper, advised her so, and declined to accept her as a broker. Even when she claimed that other brokers took fees of this nature, he demurred, claiming he did not endorse the practice. Respondent worked for Mr. Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker, at his firm, Money Street Mortgage, for approximately 3 months during 1992. At the time she went to work for him, Respondent did not tell him she was under sanctions by the Department to have strict supervision and at no time did he agree to the Departmental supervision program. Mr. Brigliadora did not receive the $300.00 check Respondent obtained from the McGhees nor did he ever get the money it represented from the Respondent. It was only just before or at the closing on the property that he first became aware of the deposit. When he refunded the money to the McGhees, Respondent agreed to reimburse him but she never did. Normally, Money Street Mortgage does not take application fees on residential loans, and Mr. Brigliadora denies he ever approved or suggested to Respondent that she solicit them. When Respondent gave him the documentation on the McGhee loan application it did not include the required good faith estimate found in the brokerage agreement nor did the application form or any other document make the required disclosures. The application he got from Respondent does not constitute a brokerage agreement and Mr. Brigliadora never got one from the Respondent on this loan. What he received is no more than an application for a loan. Mr. James, the Department's Area Financial Manager, whose job includes the assignment of examiners and the review of investigations by examiners, knows Respondent as a licensed mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. He is aware of prior complaints received by the Department about the Respondent in the past. Two of them relate to the Final Orders previously mentioned herein. In the instant case, he recalls receiving a telephone call regarding a deposit of $300.00 given to Respondent and commenced an investigation into the incident. The current Administrative Complaint which resulted in this hearing was the outcome of that investigation. Based on his evaluation of the matters discovered in the investigation, he concluded that Respondent took a fee from a client without having a brokerage agreement with that client; failed to make the required full disclosure to a client; and misappropriated a fee which she received from a client; all of which are violations of various provisions of Chapter 494. In his official capacity with the Department, Mr. James had the duty to approve a supervisory mortgage broker for the Respondent as called for in the two prior Final Orders referred to previously herein. Neither Money Street Mortgage nor Mr. Brigliadora were submitted by Respondent for approval by the Department even though Respondent knew she was required to do so. Respondent claims she made it very clear to Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker. Nonetheless, Mrs. McGhee, she claims, insisted Respondent help her and offered to pay her for her efforts. Respondent claims that all Petitioner's witnesses lied about her and forged documents relating to her alleged activities. She denies she would ever cheat or disobey the rules because she knows she would lose her license if she did. Claiming she is well respected in the community, she asserts the Department did not thoroughly investigate the allegations against her and is, therefore, destroying her reputation over something which did not happen as alleged. Her assertions are not accepted, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case finding her guilty of the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein; revoking Harriett Ijames' license as a mortgage broker in Florida; and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa L. Elwell, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Harriett Ijames 8341 Paddlewheel Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
