The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
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 sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of June, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, including the duty to sanction those licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act (the Act) for violations of the Act. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Joan N. Harnagel (Ms. Harnagel), was a registered mortgage broker in the State of Florida, holding license No. HA 517383319. There was no evidence that Ms. Harnagel's registration has been previously disciplined by Petitioner. Respondent Meridian Mortgage Group, Inc. (Meridian) first became a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida in September, 1988, with Respondent Joan N. Harnagel (Ms. Harnagel) serving as its vice-president and principal mortgage broker. Between September, 1988, and August, 1992, Meridian was a mortgage brokerage business in the State of Florida and held license No.HB 880000176-00. Meridian has held no active license as a Florida mortgage broker since August, 1992. There was no evidence that Meridian's registration has been previously disciplined by Petitioner. In September 1988, Meridian bought a Florida mortgage brokerage company named Bay Pointe Mortgage. At the time of this purchase, Ms. Harnagel was the principal mortgage broker and was responsible for the daily operations of Bay Pointe as its general manager. Upon Meridian's purchase of Bay Pointe, Ms. Harnagel served as Meridian's principal mortgage broker in Florida and continued her responsibility for the daily operation of Meridian's activities in Florida. Until July 15, 1989, Ms. Harnagel had no ownership interest in Meridian. The owners of Meridian between September 1988 and July 15, 1989, were Majorie Mohr and Larry Mohr of Carmel, Indiana. On July 15, 1989, Ms. Harnagel assumed ownership of Meridian and continued to serve as its principal mortgage broker and general manager responsible for daily operations. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Harnagel was the principal mortgage broker of Meridian and was responsible for its daily operations, which included the hiring and firing of employees, the ordering of appraisals and credit reports for customers, and the preparation of good faith estimates. Petitioner conducted an examination of the Respondents Harnagel and Meridian for the period inclusive of January 1, 1989, through April 30, 1990. As a result of the investigation, Petitioner prepared and forwarded to Respondents a report of its investigation. Subsequently thereto, Petitioner prepared and served on Respondents an "Administrative Complaint, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Intent to Revoke Licenses and Notice of Rights" which is the charging document for this proceeding. 1/ PAR PLUS VIOLATIONS There is a difference between a mortgage broker's origination fee and a lender's discount fee. A mortgage broker's origination fee is a fee charged by the mortgage broker for finding a loan for the applicant. A discount fee is a fee charged by the lender to a borrower for doing the paperwork on a loan and is usually expressed as a percentage of the amount borrowed. A discount may be considered as prepaid interest to the lender to cover the lender's expenses in making the loan. In the typical transaction that does not involve "par plus", the mortgage broker's origination fee is paid to the mortgage broker by the borrower at closing either by separate check or out of the proceeds of the closing. A "par plus" transaction is one in which the mortgage broker's origination fee is paid to the mortgage broker by the lender instead of by the borrower. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is a composite exhibit and pertains to a transaction involving borrowers Oscar and Arlene Carlsen. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is a composite exhibit and pertains to a transaction involving borrowers J. Richard and Sara Pooler. The first page of each exhibit is the good faith estimate that was completed by Ms. Harnagel. The good faith estimate is normally given to a borrower when the borrower first comes to the mortgage broker's office and applies for a loan. The purpose of the good faith estimate is to make full disclosure of what fees are going to be charged to the borrower. The second and third pages of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 constitute the Settlement Statements for each transaction and was prepared by the respective closing agents for these transactions. The Settlement Statement should reflect all costs that were paid by the buyer and the seller in the transaction being financed. The Carlsen transaction was a "par plus" transaction since Meridian's mortgage brokerage fee was paid by the lender. The Pooler transaction was also a "par plus" transaction since Meridian's mortgage brokerage fee was paid by the lender. By failing to respond to requests for admissions, Respondents admitted 2/ that in the Carlsen transaction and in the Pooler transaction neither Meridian nor Ms. Harnagel disclosed to the borrowers Meridian's participation in a "par plus" program. Both the Carlsen and the Pooler transactions closed in December 1989. ESCROW FUND VIOLATIONS - RESIDENTIAL 3/ Respondents received the following sums from the following borrowers on the following dates: BORROWER AMOUNT DATE K. Carrol $525.00 06-07-89 R. Williams $400.00 11-28-89 J. Gentile $270.00 06-30-89 C. Saffer $270.00 05-15-89 J. Mark $270.00 02-22-89 G. Norton $275.00 07-14-89 F. Sloss $275.00 03-02-89 W. Nachman $275.00 02-27-89 E. Ward $270.00 04-26-89 H. Rosen $310.00 04-24-89 J. Morris $825.00 06-30-89 S. Lewis $270.00 03-24-89 E. Fuller $485.00 05-01-89 G. Fleming $270.00 03-30-89 J. Bishop $270.00 03-28-89 P. Bifulco $270.00 04-10-89 E. Zulueta $270.00 05-26-89 L. MacCalister $325.00 06-21-89 T. Nangle $275.00 01-26-89 I. Rybicki $270.00 03-31-89 I. Rybicki $275.00 03-07-89 The foregoing sums were received by Respondents from borrowers to pay for credit reports and appraisals. Respondents should have placed these funds in the escrow account Meridian maintained at Sun Bank. Instead of being used for the intended purpose, these funds were placed in Meridian's operating account at Sun Bank and were used to pay Meridian's overhead. At all times pertinent hereto Respondent Harnagel was the principal mortgage broker for Meridian and knew that these sums were not being placed in escrow, knew that the funds should have been placed in escrow, and knew that these funds were not being expended for credit reports and appraisal reports. Ms. Harnagel asserts that the practice of placing these funds in Meridian's operating account was dictated by Meridian's out-of-state owners. Ms. Harnagel knew this practice violated the Mortgage Brokerage Act and asserts that she repeatedly informed the Mohrs of this problem. Notwithstanding her acknowledged violation of the Act, she continued to collect these fees and continued to place these fees in Meridian's operating account. The great majority of these transactions occurred prior to Ms. Harnagel assuming ownership of Meridian on July 15, 1989. As a result of these practices, Meridian became indebted to at least two appraisal companies, Duffy and Associates (Duffy) and Diamond Realty and Appraisal Company (Diamond). Neither appraisal company had been fully repaid as of the time of the formal hearing. Duffy and Associates is owed a total of $4,000 by Respondents for work that was performed on the order of Respondents. At least six of the appraisals for which Duffy has not been paid were ordered after Ms. Harnagel assumed ownership of Meridian. In each of these transactions Respondents collected the amount necessary to pay for the appraisal, but, instead of paying for the appraisals, spent the amounts as part of the operating account on overhead expenses. Ms. Harnagel paid Diamond the sum of $1,500 as partial payment of the accumulated debt to Diamond. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondents owed Diamond the sum of $1,675 plus interest and attorney's fees. THE COMMERCIAL LENDER: VICTORY ENTERPRISES TRUST The proposed lender for each of the four commercial transactions at issue in this proceeding was an entity referred to as "Victory Enterprises Trust". The principals of this trust were Thomas Telford, Harold McDonnard, Harold Meridon, and a man identified as Mr. Carpenter. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION ONE: GOLDEN HILLS Golden Hills is one of the four commercial projects that was at issue in this proceeding. A group of individuals including Robert Hastings, Doug Ollenberger, and Jeffery Kollenkark formed a partnership to purchase, refurbish, and develop a golf course and its surrounding property known as Golden Hills. This partnership, initially known as EBBCO Partnership and later incorporated under the name of Fore Golf Management, Inc., discussed with Ms. Harnagel the financing that would be required for the project. Ms. Harnagel suggested to this borrower a possible joint venture with a potential lender, the Victory Enterprises Trust, and requested a deposit in the amount of $12,000. Ms. Harnagel did not identify her lender to the borrower. This borrower deposited with Meridian the sum of $12,000 on or about September 28, 1989, with conditions that may be summarized as follows: The money was to be placed in Meridian's escrow account. The money was to be "100 percent refundable" if the joint venture partner did not fund the project or if terms of funding were not acceptable. Signatures from both parties to the joint venture would be required to release the funds from escrow. This money was not to be considered an application fee, but as a deposit for closing costs of the proposed joint venture. Any funds remaining were to be returned to Fore Golf Management, Inc. At no time did the Golden Hills borrowers authorize Ms. Harnagel to remove any of the funds from her trust account. On October 2, 1989, Ms. Harnagel wrote Robert Hastings a letter that included the following: Friday, September 29, 1989, Sun Bank received the Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) and deposited in MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. TRUST ACCOUNT. These monies are used for prudent expenses needed to bring FORE GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC. an acceptable commitment. THE MONIES ARE REFUNDABLE if the commitment is not acceptable. (Emphasis in the original) On February 1, 1990, Mr. Hastings wrote Ms. Harnagel a letter that included the following: ... For about five months we have been attempting to put together a deal on Golden Hills. You have had our $12,000.00 since 9/29/89. To date no commitment has been brought to us. We do not mind continuing to try, but we do not wish to continue with this indefinitely. It is our wish that you suggest a time frame within which the project is completed and funded, or unless extended in writing by both parties, all agreements are null and void and all monies are refunded. On March 3, 1991, the Golden Hills borrowers demanded that Respondents return the $12,000 deposit, noting that the Golden Hills property had been sold to another entity approximately six months previously and that no commitment from Respondents or their lender had been forthcoming. Thereafter, the Golden Hills borrowers sent Dr. Kollenkark to Florida from California in an effort to collect the deposit from Respondents. On March 11, 1991, Ms. Harnagel wrote to Dr. Kollenkark a letter that provided, in part, as follows: The Trust does not want to return the monies as they felt they bought a commitment but that you were unable to obtain a viable contract. As I have said to you when we were told in December, 1990 that Golden Hills had definitely been sold. I told you that I would pay the $13,000 and get the money through the legal department. The reference to the Trust in Ms. Harnagel's letter of March 11, 1991, is to the Victory Enterprises Trust. The reference to the sum of $13,000 was an error and should have been $12,000. There was no evidence as to whether the deposit was transferred from Meridian's trust account to the proposed lender as implied by the letter of March 11, 1991. Ms. Harnagel testified that the money was transferred to Meridian's operating account and expended on Meridian's operating expenses. Ms. Harnagel admitted that the sum deposited by the Golden Hills borrowers should be refunded, but that she has been unable to do so. Her position that using the money to fund her operating expenses was authorized by the agreement with the Golden Hills borrowers is rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Although the record establishes that Ms. Harnagel expended considerable time and effort to secure funding for the Golden Hills borrowers, the record is equally clear that she was not entitled to use the deposit to fund her overhead expenses. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION TWO: GENESIS CORPORATION The second commercial transaction involved the funding of two hotel projects with the Genesis Corporation as Respondents' borrower. By letter dated December 15, 1989, the Genesis Corporation deposited with Meridian the sum of $1,500. Paragraph two of the transmittal letter is as follows: 2. The Funding must be to Genesis Corp. satisfaction. The Application Fee of $1,500. is refundable, if Genesis Corp. is not Completely Satisfied with the Funding. The principals of Genesis Corporation did not provide certain financial statements requested by Respondents. Consequently, Respondents were unable to secure financing for the two hotel projects. After the request for the financial statements was made, Respondents did not hear further from the Genesis Corporation. Respondents expended the deposit made by the Genesis Corporation for its operating expenses. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION THREE: RIVER RUN The third commercial transaction involved River Run Limited Partnership (River Run), which proposed to develop a golf course in North Carolina. As part of the transaction, Meridian required the borrower to pay an advance fee of $10,000.00 to be placed in Meridian's trust account. This deposit was subject to the following conditions: The deposited fee may be used by the lender (an unidentified trust) or by MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. in conjunction with the lender to conduct an inspection of the property and for other prudent and reasonable expenses necessary to bring the BORROWER an acceptable loan commitment. For all monies spent a full accounting of such expenses will be made to BORROWER. If no loan commitment is offered within fifteen (15) days of the last signature date of this agreement, the entire application fee will be refunded unless otherwise agreed to by both parties to this agreement. Should an offer be made by the lender that, for any reason, is unacceptable to the BORROWER, the BORROWER shall have the right to reject such an offer and the entire application fee shall be refunded to the BORROWER. In such an event, the BORROWER shall be obligated to notify MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. within five (5) working days of receipt of such offer that the offer is rejected, otherwise the deposited funds will be forfeited and will become the property of MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. The foregoing agreement between Meridian and River Run was extended so that Meridian was given until November 15, 1989, to obtain the financing. The $10,000 deposit to Meridian was paid on behalf of River Run by Nate Bowman. No financing for River Run was secured by Respondents. Mr. Bowman demanded a refund of the deposit and subsequently obtained judgment against Respondents for the $10,000 deposit. As of the formal hearing, Respondents had not satisfied the Bowman judgment or otherwise refunded the deposit to River Run. Ms. Harnagel asserted that the following circumstances were the reason that the River Run transaction did not close: The trust that was to be the lender asked for financial statements that were not provided. There was a lawsuit between certain of the partners of River Run. A financial officer would not relinquish certain tax returns for one of the partners of River Run. There was a concern about River Run's ability to repay the money. Ms. Harnagel stated that of the $10,000 that was deposited into Meridian's trust account, she only retained the sum of $3,500 and that the balance went to the lending trust. The $3,500 that was retained by Ms. Harnagel was expended. There was no accounting for these expenditures. Likewise, there was no accounting for the sums paid to the lending trust. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION FOUR: CHAPEL HILL The fourth commercial transaction involved a group of borrowers represented by Michael Grdina, an attorney in Ohio, who desired to obtain financing for the construction of a series of projects that will be referred to as the Chapel Hill complex. Subsequent to a telephone conversation between Mr. Grdina and Ms. Harnagel, Ms. Harnagel sent a letter dated November 16, 1989. This letter reflected that Respondents represented a Trust and that the Trust was interested in participating in a joint venture with Mr. Grdina's clients. The letter contained certain requirements imposed by the Trust and provided, in part, as follows: A Seventy-Five Hundred ($7,500.00) application fee be placed in MERIDIAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. TRUST ACCOUNT. These monies are used for prudent expenses needed to bring Chapel Hill Commerce Center an acceptable commitment. If the commitment is not acceptable the monies are refundable. In response to that letter of November 16, 1989, Mr. Grdina wrote Ms. Harnagel a letter on behalf of his clients and enclosed a check for the sum of $7,500. Mr. Grdina's letter became the agreement between the parties as to the status of the $7,500 deposit paid to Respondents by Mr. Grdina. That letter omitted the language in Ms. Harnagel's letter of November 16, 1989, pertaining to the use of the deposit "for prudent business expenses". Mr. Grdina's letter of December 1, 1989, provided, in part, as follows: By wire transfer to Meridian's trust account the entities [Mr. Grdina's clients] have placed with you a Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) refundable good faith deposit. If an entity accepts a proposal for funding from sources identified by you, and such entity does not close the transaction for reason other than the fault of the lender, the good faith deposit will be forfeited as liquidated damages for expenses and fees incurred in the transaction. The initial agreement between Harnagel and Grdina contemplated that Harnagel's Trust would provide financing for Grdina's clients. By letter dated February 23, 1990, Mr. Grdina accepted the offer that the transaction be modified so that the Trust would secure 100 percent of the loan by a lending institution by depositing with the lending institution certificates of deposit. As additional consideration to the Trust, the Trust would become entitled to 25 percent equity participation in the construction project. The letter of February 23, 1990, did not modify the status of the deposit paid by Mr. Grdina on behalf of his clients. The loan to Mr. Grdina's clients did not close because the lending institution with whom Ms. Harnagel and Victory Trust dealt would not fund the loan. Thereafter, Mr. Grdina demanded return of the $7,500 deposit. As of the date of the formal hearing, that deposit has not been refunded. Although Ms. Harnagel argues that she was entitled to keep the deposit, that argument is without merit since none of the conditions precedent to her entitlement to the deposit occurred. CUSTOMER OVERCHARGE Respondents admitted that two customers were charged brokerage fees, origination fees, and/or discount fees which were greater than those disclosed on the Good Faith Estimates. On the Morris transaction, a fee of $450.80 was estimated, but the fee actually assessed at closing was $2,240, an overcharge of $1,790. On the Rosen transaction a fee of $1,773 was estimated, but the actual fee assessed was $1,871.50, for an overcharge of $98.50. Both overcharges resulted from charges imposed by a lending institution and neither overcharge resulted in inappropriate payments to Respondents. WALL STREET JOURNAL ADVERTISEMENT Respondents placed an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal on February 16, 1990. This advertisement did not contain the address of Meridian as required by law. The deletion of Meridian's address was the fault of the Wall Street Journal. INVESTIGATION OF LENDING SOURCE Ms. Harnagel testified without contradiction that she made efforts to verify the reliability of the Victory Enterprises Trust and its principals. She learned of this potential lender through an advertisement the Trust had placed in the Miami Herald. Neither the Trust or the principals were required to be licensed in Florida. Her efforts included having her attorney and her bank officer make inquiries to verify the reliability of the proposed lender. Petitioner argues that Respondents should have made further inquiry after the loan to the Golden Hills borrowers was not forthcoming from this lender. Petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents breached any standards imposed upon them to investigate the reliability of lenders so as to prove that Respondents are incompetent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all licenses and registrations issued either to Joan N. Harnagel or Meridian Mortgage Group, Inc., be revoked. It is further recommended that an administrative fine be imposed against Joan N. Harnagel in the amount of $25,000. It is further recommended that a separate administrative fine be imposed against Meridian Mortgage Group, Inc., in the amount of $25,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 22nd day of July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: For the period September 1, 1987 through August 31, 1988, Respondent was registered as the principal mortgage broker for the company AFM. Respondent's license number, HT 0010066, and street address, 3200 N. Military Trail, Suite 300, Boca Raton, Florida 33431, were included on the mortgage broker business registration renewal form executed and submitted by Respondent to the Department. AFM's mortgage brokerage registration number was HY0019932. Ronald Mims performed an examination of the AFM business records for a period which included September 1, 1987 through August 31, 1988. One of the loan transactions examined by Mr. Mims pertained to a borrower/applicant named Frazer. The records maintained by AFM related to this transaction contained a good faith estimate, dated April 15, 1988, that was prepared and executed by Darlene M. Mannarino, as the AFM office manager. The file did not contain a copy executed by the borrower. The good faith estimate described in paragraph 2 provided, in part: In compliance with Chapter 494 of Florida Statutes; Lender/Broker hereby acknowledges receipt of an application fee in the amount of $ 300.00 , and agrees that this will be applied towards the settlement charges. If an acceptable commitment is not obtained or loan closing does not occur for any reason, this deposit will not be refunded. A copy of a check in the amount of $300.00 payable to "American Funding1 from Frazer Distributors was included in the AFM-Frazer transaction file. Also included was a loan application executed by Respondent as the AFM interviewer. None of the documents contained in the Frazer file dIsclosed the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (MBGF). Such documents did not disclose the escrow/trust agent if other the payee, American Funding. AFN did not have an escrow/trust account. The good faith estimate for the Frazer transaction provided for an estimated charge of $225.00 for an anticipated appraisal fee. Peter H. Sayles performed an appraisal for the Frazer transaction. The total amount billed to AFM by Sayles for he Frazer account was $350.00. Mr. Sayles was not paid for this work nor for an additional $100.00 due to him from AFM for a Roberts account. Mr. Sayles obtained a default judgment for these amounts in summary claims. Mr. Mims also obtained copies of records maintained by AFM related to a transaction for a borrower/applicant named Neger. A good faith estimate executed by the borrower on October 27, 1987, contained the same language as described in paragraph 3 above. The amount of the Neger deposit, however, was $250.00. The file did not contain a copy of the good faith estimate executed by AFM. The file held a copy of a check dated October 27, 1987, from Daniel Neger to "American Funding" in the amount of $250.00. The Neger loan application was signed by Darlene/Sherin Reynolds as the interviewer for AFM. The Neger documents maintained by AFM did not disclose the conditions or limits for recovery from the MBGF. Additionally, the documents did not disclose the escrow/trust agent for the transaction if other than the payee (American Funding). At the time of this transaction AFM did not maintain an escrow/trust account. At all times material to this case, Darlene Mannarino was not licensed by the Department. Except as noted above, Ms. Mannarino's duties and the type of payment she received for the work she rendered on behalf of AFM are not established by the record in this case. AFM did not maintain a mortgage journal in connection with the loan transactions it processed. Instead, AFM retained records in a card index file for loan applications. The records maintained in the card index file were incomplete and, consequently, inadequate to allow Mr. Mims to track the status and completion of loan transactions processed by AFM.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter a final order placing the Respondent licensee on probation for a period of two years. Further, it is recommended that the Department impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-0743 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. While the Department established that Sayles was not paid for appraisal services rendered, that does not imply nor establish that Respondent misused funds. Whether funds exist from which Sayles could be paid, is unknown. All that is known is that AFM, for whatever reason, did not pay Sayles. Paragraph 9 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as unsupported by the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 3 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelsohn Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Ill Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Jerald A. Goldstein JERALD A GOLDSTEIN, P.A. 3200 North Military Trail Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Mr. William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed, and as of the date of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, held license No. HB-0008511 as a mortgage broker and was president and principal broker of Bay Area Financial Services, Inc. He has held such license since November 1979. He sold the business in April 1980 and has reapplied within six months for an individual license. The application was received on May 16, 1980. Pursuant to Rule 3D-40.03(3), Florida Administrative Code, Respondent is treated as a current licensee, and as an applicant. From October 25, 1977, until June 12, 1979, Respondent was employed as vice-president and principal mortgage broker by United Companies Mortgage and Investment of St. Petersburg, Inc., hereinafter UCMI, a mortgage brokerage firm. United Companies Financial Corporation, hereinafter UCFC, is a Louisiana corporation, authorized to do business in Florida. The company engages in the business as a mortgage lender. On August 31, 1978, UCMI by and through its broker, Respondent, made a loan to "James G. Anderson" and "Lorraine Anderson, his wife," and accepted a note in the amount of $14,500.00 made by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," together with a first mortgage also made by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife," as security for the repayment of the loan. The first mortgage purported to encumber Lot 25, Oak Harbor Subdivision, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 94, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. On August 31, 1978, UCMI, for value, assigned the note and mortgage to UCFC. The Respondent has no objection as to the authenticity and genuineness of Exhibit 11, a copy of a contract for sale of real estate which, on its fact, was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," as purchasers of certain real property from the seller, Linda Carol Querry, a/k/a L. C. Querry. The document reflects that the purchase price be $18,500.00, payable $100.00 in cash as a deposit, $900.00 cash within twenty-four hours, $4,500.00 additional deposit at time of closing, and $13,000.00 mortgage balance. (Exhibit 2). Anderson acknowledged his signature on this document but has no recollection of signing it. On August 31, 1978, a Notice to Customers, required by federal law, was executed by "James G. Anderson and his wife Lorraine," setting forth the disclosure requirements of Regulation Z. The lender is reflected as UCFC and the broker as UCMI of St. Petersburg. Respondent Hughes executed such document as a witness to the signatures of "Mr. and Mrs. Anderson." On August 31, 1978, a promissory note was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson" promising to pay UCMI the sum of $14,500.00. (Exhibit 3). On August 31, 1978, a document entitled Consummation of Loan Secured by Real Property, was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," as the borrowers. (Exhibit 4). On August 31, 1978, a document entitled Notice to Customer Required by Federal Law was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," as the borrowers. (Exhibit 5). On August 31, 1978, a document regarding the loan transaction was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson," acknowledging receipt of the "Good Faith Estimates," and certain other materials. (Exhibit 6). On August 31, 1978, a Notice to Purchaser-Mortgagor was executed by "James G. Anderson and his wife, Lorraine Anderson" acknowledging receipt of such notice. (Exhibit 7). On August 31, 1978, an Owner's Affidavit was executed by "James G. Anderson and his wife, Lorraine." (Exhibit 8). On August 28, 1978, a loan application was executed by "James G. Anderson" for the $14,500.00 to be secured by a first mortgage. Respondent personally handled the application as indicated on the application itself. (Exhibit 1). On August 31, 1978, check No. 15-39091 was executed by Respondent Hughes, as authorized representative of United Companies, Inc., as payor, to James G. Anderson and Title Consultants, as payees, in the amount of $11,014.58. The check was endorsed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson." (Exhibit 10). On August 31, 1978, a Warranty Deed was executed by Linda Carol Querry, a/k/a L. C. Querry, as seller of certain real property to "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife." Respondent Hughes executed the document as a witness to Linda Querry's signature and execution. The property described in the Warranty Deed is the identical property mortgaged by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson" to secure the loan from UCMI and UCFC. (Exhibit 13). On August 31, 1978, a Mortgage Deed was executed by "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife," as mortgagors, to UCMI of St. Petersburg, as mortgagee, as security for the repayment of the loan. Respondent Hughes executed the Mortgage Deed as a witness to the signatures of "Mr. and Mrs. Anderson." (Exhibit 9). On August 31, 1978, UCMI, by and through its principal broker and vice president, Respondent Hughes, assigned the Anderson mortgage and note to UCFC. The applicable Florida law governing this matter is Chapter 494, Florida Statutes (1977), and as amended in the 1978 Supplement, and Chapter 3D- 40, administrative rules regulating mortgage brokerage, Florida Administrative Code. In August 1978, James G. Anderson, who worked in the Sanitation Department of the City of St. Petersburg, also worked part-time repainting houses purchased for resale by Vic Vogel, a speculator. While so employed, Anderson had seen Respondent a few times in the company of Vogel, but had never formally met Respondent. Vogel offered to sell one of these houses to Anderson on terms that would require no down payment by Anderson, who would thereafter make monthly payments similar to the rental payments he was then making. Further, there would be no "red tape" and Anderson would be buying a home rather than renting one. Anderson trusted Vogel, who assured Anderson he would take care of all the details. The house Anderson agreed to buy was on 11th Street and 20th Avenue South in St. Petersburg and was one of the houses Anderson had worked on in his part-time job with Vogel. In the contract to purchase signed by Anderson (Exhibit 11) the block for the legal description of the property is blank. The various other spaces on the form now showing the purchase price, down payment, etc., were blank when signed by Anderson. For several years prior to 1977 Anderson had been living with Lorraine Walker but never held her out as his wife. The signature "Lorraine Anderson" on all exhibits except Exhibit 14, the quitclaim deed from Anderson to United Companies Financial Corporation, were signed by someone other than Lorraine Walker. At the instigation of his attorney, Anderson and Lorraine Walker signed Exhibit 14 to clear up foreclosure proceedings that had been instituted against Anderson. The closing of the sale of property to Anderson took place at the offices of United Companies at 300 S. Duncan Street, Clearwater, Florida on 31 August 1978. Anderson was picked up by Vogel and driven to the closing. Accompanying Vogel was Mike Robertson, an associate of Vogel; Linda Querry, Vogel's girl friend, who signed the deed conveying the property to Anderson; and an unidentified black woman. While awaiting Respondent's arrival for the closing, Vogel took the group to lunch. At the closing, Anderson signed numerous documents and other people, including the black woman who obviously signed "Lorraine Anderson," also signed these documents as witnesses and/or notary. Anderson does not recall having seen Verona Krnjaich, who notarized his signature on the documents he signed at the closing and Ms. Krnjaich does not recall a closing at which Anderson was present. However, she testified that her normal practice is to notarize only documents notarized in her presence, and that she follows this practice at all closings. On the other hand, she has good recall of faces seen at closings but does not believe she ever saw Anderson before this hearing. Anderson testified that he trusted Vogel and signed whatever documents Vogel asked him to sign; that all the documents bearing his signature were blank when he signed them; that he did not know the black woman in the room at the closing or that when she signed these documents she did so in the name of Lorraine Anderson; that the closing took place on the second or third floor of a building just off U.S. 19 between Clearwater and St. Petersburg; that he doesn't know the address of this building but could return to it, and in fact, a few months prior to this hearing, took one of Petitioner's agents to the building where the closing took place; that he received no copy of any document signed by him at the closing; that he thought he was buying a house from Vogel; and that he expected Vogel to notify him after the closing when he could move in and how much he would pay each month. Vogel did not again contact Anderson and apparently has left the area. A few months prior to this hearing Anderson accompanied one of Petitioner's agents to show the agent where the closing occurred. The building to which the agent was taken by Anderson is two-storied and occupied by Ellis National Bank. In August 1978 there was no other occupant of this building and the second floor was unfinished but contained restrooms and some offices occupied by bank employees. Anderson made no cash payment before, at, or after the closing on this house; nor did he ever move into it. The legal description on the deed conveying the property to Anderson is for property located at 626-27th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida, and not for the house at 11th Street and 20th Avenue South which Anderson thought he was buying. After Anderson became delinquent on his mortgage payments Respondent went to Anderson's home one Sunday afternoon demanding payment of the delinquent monthly payments owed by Anderson. The latter told Respondent he hadn't bought any house from the lender, owed no money, and wasn't going to pay. Respondent shortly thereafter turned the case over to the United Companies' attorney, who instituted foreclosure proceedings. When served with these papers Anderson took them to his lawyer. After some of the facts surrounding this transaction became apparent, the assignee of the mortgagee accepted a quitclaim deed to the mortgaged property from Anderson. Lorraine Walker accompanied Anderson to the lawyer's office and signed the quitclaim deed "Lorraine Anderson" (Exhibit 14). The deed signed by L. C. Querry conveying Lot 25 to Anderson (Exhibit 13) conveyed the property to "James G. Anderson and Lorraine Anderson, his wife." Respondent had known Vic Vogel for five or six years prior to August 1977 and had been involved in ten or twelve transactions in which Vogel had picked up distressed property, refurbished it and sold it. Anderson had few debts and readily qualified for the mortgage loan without considering the income of Lorraine or his income from his part-time work. He understood he was buying the house without any down payment, and, in fact, Anderson paid nothing down when he signed the contract and he produced no cash at the closing. The only disbursement made at closing was by the mortgagee, whose check for $11,014.58 (Exhibit 10) was payable to Title Consultants and Anderson. The latter endorsed this check and presumably Title Consultants disbursed to the seller. Closing statements for the buyer and seller were not in the files of UCMI or Title Consultants, nor was a contract to purchase in which the description of the property to be bought was shown. Respondent's witness testified that she reviewed all documents prior to a closing; that she recalls the Anderson transaction; doesn't recall who prepared those documents but believes she typed them; that documents were never signed in blank and the blanks subsequently completed; that she did the credit check on Anderson; and that all documents used in the closing were completed in full before the closing at which they were signed by Anderson and the person signing as Lorraine Anderson. A check with the credit bureau should have disclosed Anderson's marital status as not married and this witness was unable to explain the failure to pick this up when Exhibit 1, the loan application, was verified with the credit bureau. Respondent testified that he recalled the Anderson transaction on 31 August 1978 but later in his testimony stated he did not recall this specific transaction. He believes he followed his usual procedure and explained the various documents to Anderson before the latter signed them. Prior to 1978 he had closed many transactions for UCMI without a contract to purchase having been executed. The loan application is mailed to the main office of United Companies in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and telephonic approval is given by Baton Rouge. Accordingly, it was not unusual for Anderson's loan application to be prepared 28 August 1978, the original mailed to Baton Rouge and approval received in time to close the transaction on 31 August 1978. The contract upon which this house was conveyed, and the closing statements of buyer or seller, were not presented at this hearing. Witnesses testified these documents were missing from the files in which they would be expected to keep. Regardless of this, it is uncontradicted that Anderson made no payment at closing and, if any payment was made prior to closing, any such payment would have been accounted for by the escrow agent. It is also evident that no such accounting was made. By signing a note and mortgage for $14,500.00 Anderson purported to purchase a house for slightly more than $11,000.00, which is the amount of the check endorsed by Anderson at closing and which sum presumably went to the seller. Some $3,000.00 was retained by the lender as prepaid finance charges ($1,567.67) and brokerage fee ($1,545.45). (Exhibit 2.) Accordingly, the mortgage of $14,500 represented approximately 130% of the amount paid for this house. This fact was known, or should have been known, to Respondent, who presumably was representing his principal, UCMI, the lender at this closing. Respondent was paid a fixed salary by UCMI and did not receive additional compensation for each transaction he closed. UCMI suffered a financial loss on the repossession of the house from Anderson and filed suit against Industrial Valley Title Insurance Company (Exhibit 15).
Recommendation From the foregoing it is concluded that Respondent was guilty of concealing material facts from UCMI involving the transaction with Anderson at which UCMI was mortgagee, and that, as a result, UCMI suffered injury. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Robert E. Hughes' license as a mortgage broker be suspended for a period of six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklyn J. Wollett, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George W. Greer, Esquire 302 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October 1980.
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 The administratively complaint alleges that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 517,16(1)(a), F.S. by having sold notes, which were securities as defined by Section 517.02(1), F.S., which were unregistored in violation of Section 517.07, F.S., and having represented that said notes were secured by first mortgages when in fact they were not so secured in violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S., on two occasions to Joseph M. and Patricia Barton. The first sale is alleged to have occurred on June 14, 1974, in the amount of $15,000, and the other sale is alleged to hake occurred on September 29, 1973 in the amount of $5,000. The Petitioner introduced Exhibit 1 which was received and which indicates that only the common stock of Equitable Development Corporation was registered with the State of Florida, Division of Securities. The Petitioner presented no evidence relative to the alleged sale occurring on June 14, 1974. It is therefore not proven. The Petitioner called Gregory Stevens who was the sole witness at the hearing and who was a license securities salesman and licensed mortgage broker. In September 1973 Stevens was self employed doing business for Gregory Stevens, Investment Incorporated. Stevens stated that he dealt in first mortgages. Respondent testified that he obtained the mortgage documents through Financial Resources Corp., the president of which was Mr. Rinehart. Respondent was assured by Mr. Rinehart before he began handling these mortgages that they were not required to be registered as securities because they ware exempt, and that the State had so indicated for this type of transaction. Respondent testified that he sold a note and mortgage to his clients, Joseph and Patricia Barton, in his capacity as a licensed mortgage broker on behalf of Gregory Stevens Investments, Inc., of which he is president. Exhibit 10 is a sample order form for another contract which shows that such transactions were in the corporate entity. Respondent's uncontroverted testimony was that only he individually is licensed to sell securities, and that no mortgages were sold as securities. The evidence is that on September 29, 1973, a promissory note of the Equitable Development Corporation was issued to Joseph and/or Patricia Barton, secured by a Mortgage Deed issued by Equitable Development Corporation. The face amount was $5,000. The Bartons also received a quitclaim deed. The mortgage deed specifically covenants that the underlying property is free and clear of all encumbrances except current and future real estate taxes. Respondent testified that he physically examined the property which secured the mortgages and it looked good. He saw appraisals at double the face amount of the mortgages he sold. Those clients who requested title insurance or opinions of title from a lawyer could obtain same, and when they were requested he saw then and they never showed any defects or other encumbrances. This was the procedure followed with the Bartons, although neither title insurance nor a title search and opinion were obtained requested by the Bartons. The Respondent indicated that at the time of said sale to the Bartons that he believed, and had no reason not to believe, that said mortgage was a first mortgage as it recites on its face. The Hearing Officer notes that Section 517.06(7), F.S., 1973, was amended effective October 1, 1973, and the Barton transaction took place on September 29, 1973. Therefore, the applicable provision is the unamended law found at Section 517.06(7), F.S.A. Regarding the law existing at the time and its interpretation, the Respondent also introduced Exhibit 2, 4, and 5 which letters indicate that the sale of notes secured by mortgages would be exempt from registration as exempt transactions pursuant to Section 517.06(7), F.S.A., and setting forth guidelines for exempt transactions. Without dealing with the question of estoppel, these exhibits state the agency's interpretations of the then existing law. The Hearing Officer finds the agency's interpretation as set out in Exhibits 2, 4, and 5 is an accurate interpretation of the statute. The Hearing Officer finds that a note is a security as defined in Section 517.02(1), F.S. Regarding the allegation that the note sold to the Bartons was an unregistered security, it is admitted that it was not registered, however, the Respondent asserts that the sale was a transaction exempted under the provisions of Section 517.06(7), F.S.A. Having examined the note and mortgage in question, the Hearing Officer finds that the note and entire mortgage securing it were sold in a single sale to one purchaser. The note and mortgage do not indicate any expressed recourse agreement or guarantee as to repayment of interest, principal, or both offered in connection with the sale. While the Respondent could not specifically recall the Barton transaction, he testified that purchasers were generally shown the property, an assessment of the property prepared by an appraiser indicating each lot's value, and it was represented that they would receive a first mortgage securing the note on lots worth two times the value of the note. There was no showing that the Respondent knew or should have known the mortgage to the Bartons was not a first mortgage and title to the property not clear. The transaction of September 29, 1973, was exempt under the law existing at that time. The Petitioner therefore has failed to show any violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S.
Recommendation The agency having failed to show a violation of Section 517.16(1)(d), F.S., by the Respondent and the Hearing Officer having found that the September 29, 1973 transaction was exempt recommends that the charges be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner Charles W. Musgrove, Esquire Counsel for Respondent
The Issue The issue in Case No. 90-4722 was whether B & B Mortgage Equity, Inc. was entitled to licensure as a mortgage broker in the State of Florida. As discussed in more detail below, B & B Mortgage Equity subsequently withdrew its application for licensure and that case is now moot. The issue in Case No. 90- 6577 is whether Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed in that case, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, B & B Investors was registered with the Department as a mortgage broker pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Until June 15, 1990, the business address for B & B Investors was 1481 N.W. 7th Street #1, Miami, Florida 33125. B & B Investors' registration number is HB 592369518. On or about July 5, 1990, B & B Investors filed a petition for relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9090-14587-SMW. Yanks was the president and principal mortgage broker for B & B Investors until May 10, 1989. Yanks is a licensed mortgage broker in Florida having been issued license number was 262788177. He has been licensed since 1980 or 1981. There is no evidence of any prior disciplinary action against him or B & B Investors. At all times pertinent hereto, Yanks was also the President of B & B Equity. B & B Equity has never been registered pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Until June 15, 1990, the business address for B & B Equity was also 1481 N.W. 7th Street #1, Miami, Florida 33125. At all times pertinent hereto, Hernandez-Yanks was married to Yanks and was the Vice President and Secretary of B & B Equity. Hernandez-Yanks is an attorney, but she has never been licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. On or about March 15, 1990, Hernandez-Yanks filed a Petition for Relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 90-11654-BKC-AJC. On or about January 1, 1990, B & B Equity filed an Application for Registration as a Mortgage Brokerage Business (the "Registration Application"). Paragraph 6 of the Registration Application stated in part: List all officers, directors, partners, joint-ventures, and ultimate equitable owners. Ultimate equitable owner means natural person who owns 10 percent or more of applicant. NAME ADDRESS TITLE Barry Yanks 1481 NW 7 St. Pres. Ana Hernandez-Yanks 1481 NW 7 St. VP/Scty Yanks was designated as the principal mortgage broker on the Registration Application. The Department denied the Registration Application by notice dated June 4, 1990. CALVARY CHAPEL TRANSACTION At the time of the hearing in this matter, Marie Hall was 66 years old. She was last employed in 1988 by the Broward County School System as an adult vocational education instructor teaching students how to operate sewing machines. Her husband, the late Reverend Arthur Hall, died on March 22, 1988, at the age of 75. Because of health problems, he had been unable to work since 1962. The late Reverend Hall had very little education. Prior to the transactions involved in this case, the only other real estate deal in which the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall had been involved was the purchase of their home many years ago. In the summer of 1987, the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall sought to purchase Mount Bethel Baptist Church (the "Church"). To assist in their effort to purchase the Church, the Halls contacted Reverend Frank Lloyd. Reverend Frank Lloyd was the pastor of Hope Outreach, Church of God in Christ and the Chairman of the State of Florida Prison Ministry. Reverend Lloyd was also engaged in a consulting business through a company called Professional Proposal and Financial Consultants, Inc. ("PPFC"). In the summer of 1987, the Halls entered into an agreement with PPFC pursuant to which they paid PPFC $800 for PPFC's assistance in securing a loan of $250,000 to purchase the church. The agreement called for an interest rate of approximately 11 3/4 percent. The Halls deposited a total of $15,000 in escrow with Reverend Lloyd and/or PPFC. At the time the first $10,000 was deposited with PPFC, the parties entered into an agreement which provided as follows: ...This money is not to be used for down payment, or services rendered. It is to be escrowed only. At the closing of the loan this entire amount is to be returned to Elder Hall or his designate. If in the event no loan is secure [sic] all funds is [sic] to be returned to Elder Arthur Hall, President Calvary Chapel Church of God in Christ or his designate. Reverend Lloyd attempted to obtain a mortgage for the Halls from several companies including Ft. Lauderdale Mortgage and Horizon Development Mortgage ("Horizon"). The Halls decided not to pursue a loan from Horizon because Horizon wanted a non-refundable $3,000 up-front fee. There was also some question whether either company would handle a loan for a church. Reverend Lloyd introduced the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall to Yanks because Reverend Lloyd knew that Yanks had successfully obtained loans for other churches. The Halls met with Yanks on a couple of occasions in late 1987 and early 1988. Other members of the Hall's congregation attended some of these meetings. During those meetings, the need for some of the other church members to sign on the loan and/or pledge additional collateral was discussed. Yanks advised the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall that he might be able to secure a loan for them to purchase the Church, but the amount of the loan would be smaller and the interest rate would be higher than they had anticipated in their agreement with PPFC. Yanks did not require an up-front loan application fee. On January 14, 1988, the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall met with Reverend Lloyd and Yanks at the office of B & B Investors in Miami. As noted above, the Halls were initially seeking a loan of $250,000. During the January 14, 1988 meeting, Yanks advised the representatives of Calvary Chapel that he could arrange a loan of $162,000 at 17 percent if additional collateral was provided. At the January 14 meeting, the late Reverend and Mrs. Hall executed a mortgage loan application (the "Loan Application") with B & B Investors. The Halls executed the Loan Application on behalf of Calvary Chapel Church of God in Christ, Inc. (hereinafter Calvary Chapel). Yanks executed the Loan Application on behalf of B & B Investors. The Loan Application was for a $162,000 loan and stated that the loan origination fee would be $4,860.00 and the loan discount fee would be $4,860.00. The Loan Application did not indicate when those fees would be due or to whom they would be paid. The Loan Application noted that there would be an appraisal fee of $600.00 and attorneys' fees of $750.00. The evidence established that, in the mortgage brokerage business, a loan origination fee is often considered synonymous with a broker's fee. The origination fee is traditionally charged at closing. However, the agreement between a mortgage broker and a client determines when the mortgage broker is entitled to his fee. In certain circumstances, a mortgage broker may be entitled to payment upon obtaining a firm commitment for a loan irrespective of whether the loan closes. Although there was no statutory or rule requirement at the time of this transaction, it was customary in the industry for a mortgage broker to set forth in writing the terms as to when he is to be paid. The Application in this case did not state when the fees were to be considered as earned. The Loan Application also provided in part: If the above commitment or a commitment in an amount and/or upon terms acceptable to the undersigned is obtained and said mortgage loan is not closed because (I)(We) have not fulfilled our part of this agreement. (I)(We) agree to pay $ , the application deposit being a part, for obtaining said commitment. If an acceptable commitment is not obtained, the mortgage application deposit will be refunded, except $ to cover expenses actually incurred. A loan discount fee is the cost to the lender to discount the interest rate on a mortgage loan for sale in the secondary market. The discount fee is owed to the lender or investor and was collected at closing. A broker is not entitled to a loan discount fee. Yanks tries to ignore the terminology used in the Loan Application he prepared and claims that all parties knew that he and/or B & B Investors would receive both the loan origination fee and loan discount fee. He contends that he explained to the late Rev. Hall and Mrs. Hall that the loan origination fee and the loan discount fees were fees that would be paid to him when he arranged a firm commitment for a loan at the agreed upon terms. However, the more persuasive evidence established that the late Rev. Hall and Mrs. Hall did not understand that the loan origination fee and/or discount fee would be paid to Yanks irrespective of whether the loan actually closed. Moreover, Yanks has provided no credible explanation as to why he would ever be entitled to receive the loan discount fee. At the January 14, 1988 meeting, Yanks orally arranged a deal with Alan Greenwald, a private investor with whom Yanks had worked in the past, to fund a $162,000 loan at 17 percent. At the time of this transaction, there was no statutory requirement that loan commitments be made in writing. No written confirmation of the commitment was provided even though it was common in the industry for commitments to be given in writing in order to bind the lender to the transaction and to provide evidence of the terms of the commitment. The only written evidence of the loan commitment is a letter from Yanks to the attorney for Alan Greenwald. That letter states that Mr. Greenwald had asked for additional collateral. During the January 14, 1988 meeting, the late Rev. and Mrs. Hall agreed to put up their house as additional collateral. In addition, two other members of the congregation who were present at the meeting, Effie Davis and Cleveland Foreman, agreed in principal to permit a mortgage to be placed on their houses as additional collateral to secure the loan. Yanks contends that, as a result of his efforts in securing a commitment from Alan Greenwald as noted above, he was entitled to receive the loan origination fee and loan discount fee set forth in the Loan Application. After the January 14, 1988 meeting, Rev. Lloyd released to Yanks $10,000 of the $15,000 that he had been holding in escrow for the late Rev. and Mrs. Hall. The $10,000 check was made payable to B & B Investors. The $10,000 was not placed in an escrow or trust account upon receipt. Yanks apparently arranged for $1,000 of the money to be paid to Debbie Landsberg, the attorney for Alan Greenwald, as an advance on the legal fees and costs that were expected to be incurred in closing the transaction. At the time the $10,000 was transferred to B & B Investors, all of the parties to the transaction expected the loan to close and no one contemplated or anticipated that the loan would not go through. While both Yanks and Rev. Lloyd claim that the late Rev. Hall approved the release of the $10,000 as payment to Yanks for services in securing a commitment from Alan Greenwald, this testimony is rejected as not credible. The more persuasive evidence clearly established that at no time did the late Rev. and Mrs. Hall understand that if the loan did not close Yanks would keep the $10,000. After the January 14, 1988 meeting, the parties initiated the steps necessary to close the deal. These efforts were complicated by the illness of the attorney for the seller, the marriage of the attorney for the lender and the difficulty in locating the abstracts for the properties involved. Moreover, a number of title deficiencies regarding the Church were discovered and had to be corrected. The arrangements for financing the purchase of the Church changed several times. Initially, the Seller had indicated that it would take back a second mortgage for $50,000 in order to facilitate a closing. However, as the parties got closer to closing, the Seller changed its mind regarding the second mortgage. Ultimately, in September of 1988, the Seller agreed to take back a second mortgage of $35,000. Sometime during the summer of 1988, Greenwald reduced to $110,000 the amount he was willing to lend on the deal. That amount was to be secured solely by the Church property. Yanks claims that he arranged for another investor to lend between $40,000 to $45,000 with the residences of certain congregation members, including the Halls, Effie Davis and Cleveland Foreman, serving as collateral. These modifications were never memorialized in writing. As preparations for a closing proceeded, it became apparent that Effie Davis' house could not be used as security for the loan. While there is conflicting evidence as to why Effie Davis' house could not be used for additional collateral, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the presence of one or more existing liens on the property rendered it of minimal value as additional collateral. As a result of the inability to use Ms. Davis' house as part of the collateral for the loan, Yanks advised Calvary Chapel that the amount of the loan would have to be decreased from $162,000 to $150,000. Yanks also advised Calvary Chapel that an additional cash deposit of $14,000 was necessary to demonstrate to the lender that sufficient funds were available to conclude the deal. The additional money was paid in two parts. On or about August 23, 1988, Calvary Chapel paid $10,000 to the Ana-Hernandez-Yanks Trust Account. Shortly thereafter, on or about September 1, 1988, Calvary Chapel paid an additional $4,000 to the Ana Hernandez-Yanks Trust Account. These sums were received by Ana Hernandez-Yanks in trust as the attorney for the B & B Investors. No written escrow agreement was executed. No written amendment to the Loan Application was provided to reflect the new terms for the anticipated loan nor was there any written commitment letter. As noted above, the late Rev. Hall died in March of 1988. Reverend Phillip Hall, the son of the late Rev. Hall, was appointed the pastor of Calvary Chapel in April of 1988. At the time of his appointment, Rev. Phillip Hall was living in Nashville. He commuted between Nashville and Fort Lauderdale for a while before moving to Fort Lauderdale on July 31, 1988. Yanks suggests that the Reverend Philip Hall did not like the deal his parents had entered into and refused to honor it. More specifically, Yanks contends that Calvary Chapel and the seller made alternate arrangements for the sale of the property in order to avoid paying him. The evidence does not support such a conclusion. The Seller was obligated to provide clear title before the sale could close. The evidence established that the Seller was never able to provide all of the documents necessary to clear title. There is no persuasive evidence that Calvary Chapel failed to meet its obligations under the contract to purchase the Church. Instead, it appears that Calvary Chapel did everything in its power to go through with the transaction. Sometime in the fall of 1988, the seller, Mount Bethel Baptist Church, rescinded the contract to sell the Church. At some point thereafter, Calvary Chapel began occupying the Church under a lease/purchase arrangement, the terms of which have not been established in this case. As noted above, there is no persuasive evidence that the Rev. Phillip Hall and/or Calvary Chapel conspired to cheat Yanks out of his fees. In any event, even if Calvary Chapel decided for economic reasons not to go forward with the loan that Yanks was trying to arrange, it is concluded that neither Yanks nor B & B Investors had the contractual right to retain any of the money that had been advanced. After the deal failed to close, Rev. Lloyd returned to Calvary Chapel the remaining $5,000 he had been holding in escrow for the Halls. By letter dated September 19, 1988, Holly Eakin Moody, an attorney for Calvary Chapel, wrote to Yanks demanding the return of all the money that had been advanced. The letter stated: Please be advised that I have been retained by Calvary Chapel Church of God in Christ, Inc., to begin the appropriate legal action against you and your wife, Ana Hernandez-Yanks, for return of my clients [sic] escrow funds in the amount of $24,000. On or about December 24, 1988, Hernandez-Yanks tendered a check in the amount of $14,000 to Calvary Chapel. On the back of the check, the following release language was written: Full and Final Settlement of all claims against B & B Mortgage and Barry Yanks or Ana Hernandez- Yanks. Hernandez-Yanks wrote a letter dated February 7, 1989 to Holly Eakin Moody stating in part: Please be advised that as per your client's request, on December 24, 1988 I mailed them my trust account check in the amount of $14,000. I have checked numerous times with the bank and said check has not been presented for payment. I am hereby depositing said monies with the Registry of the Court. If you should have any questions, please contact me. It does not appear that Hernandez-Yanks ever deposited any money in the Registry of the Court in accordance with that February 7 letter. By letter dated March 14, 1989, Holly Eakin Moody returned the check containing the accord and satisfaction language to Hernandez-Yanks and reiterated a demand for a return of the entire $24,000. Ultimately, Hernandez-Yanks paid Calvary Chapel $14,000 by check dated March 6, 1990 on account number 020051156008 at the TransAtlantic Bank. A review of the bank records indicates that the $14,000 advanced by Calvary Chapel to B & B Investors in late August and early September of 1988 was not held in escrow. On or about September 1, 1988, $10,000 was deposited in the trust or escrow account of Hernandez-Yanks at Continental Bank (the "Continental Trust Account"). An additional $4,000 was deposited in the Continental Trust Account on or about September 6, 1988. On or about October 4, 1988, the Continental Trust Account was closed with a closing balance of or about $13,553.06. On or about October 4, 1988, Hernandez-Yanks opened a trust or escrow account at Ocean Bank (the "Ocean Trust Account"). The beginning balance of the Ocean Trust Account on or about October 4, 1988, was $13,000. On or about December 7, 1988, the balance in the Ocean Trust Account was $2,437. On or about December 15, 1988, Hernandez-Yanks opened a trust or escrow account at United National Bank (the "United Trust Account"). On or about January 19, 1990, the cash balance in the United Trust Account was $2,236.29. On or about January 5, 1990, Hernandez-Yanks opened a trust or escrow account at TransAtlantic Bank (the "TransAtlantic Trust Account"). The beginning balance of the TransAtlantic Trust Account on or about January 5, 1990, was $10,000. By check dated March 6, 1990, Calvary Church was paid $14,000 from the TransAtlantic Trust Account. There is no evidence that Yanks, Hernandez-Yanks and/or B & B Investors had any other escrow accounts. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that Yanks failed to ensure that monies received in trust were properly placed in escrow in a transaction wherein he acted as a mortgage broker. Moreover, Yanks failed to ensure that the $14,000 received by Hernandez-Yanks was returned expeditiously to Calvary Chapel. Yank's explanation that he does not tell his wife, who is an attorney, "how to run her business" does not excuse his failure to ensure that money placed in escrow with his company was promptly returned when the transaction was terminated. Yanks refused to repay any of the remaining $10,000 that was paid to B & B Investors claiming that he was entitled to keep the money as fees earned for processing a mortgage commitment from Allan Greenwald. As set forth above, the contention that the late Rev. Hall authorized payment in full of Yanks' fees is rejected as not credible. The more persuasive evidence established that the principals of Calvary Chapel did not understand that Yanks and/or B & B Investors were to be paid their fee even if the loan did not close. Since there was no agreement specifying when Yanks was to be paid, he had no legal right to retain the $10,000. Arguably, Yanks was entitled to some reimbursement for the expenses he incurred, including perhaps the $1,000 he supposedly paid to the investor's attorney. However, the evidence clearly established that Yanks was not entitled to retain the entire $10,000. 52 After the Department began its investigation of this case, Yanks offered to repay the loan discount fee of $4,860 to Calvary Chapel. As of the date of the hearing, Yanks was still refusing to repay the $4,860 loan origination fee which he claims he has earned. While Yanks' claim to the $10,000 was legally insufficient and should have been recognized as such, the evidence did not establish that Yanks was attempting to defraud the Halls and/or Calvary Chapel. There were clearly some misunderstandings between the parties. Many of these problems could have been avoided if Yanks had properly documented his fee arrangement in writing. Yanks spent a good bit of time trying to put the deal together and felt slighted when the transaction he structured fell apart, especially when Calvary Chapel ended up occupying the Church anyway. Yanks overreacted in his attempts to obtain compensation for his services. The evidence was insufficient to establish that his actions should be characterized as fraudulent. VAZQUEZ-CASTILLO TRANSACTION In approximately mid-December of 1988, Ana Vazquez began working for Yanks. Vazquez was hired by Yanks to assist in the processing of mortgages. Prior to becoming employed by Yanks, she had little experience in real estate transactions. Vazquez was employed by Yanks for only about two or three weeks. Thereafter, she was employed by Hernandez-Yanks as a secretary. Both Yanks and Hernandez-Yanks occupy space in the same building. As noted above, Hernandez- Yanks is an attorney. On or about February 27, 1989, Pura Castillo entered into a contract (the "Sales Contract") with Vazquez for the purchase of a condominium owned by Vazquez and located in Dade County, Florida, at 7440 Harding Avenue, Unit 301, Miami Beach, Florida (the "Condominium"). The sales price was $70,000. Pursuant to the Sales Contract, Vazquez was to convey title free and clear of all encumbrances, by a good and sufficient Warranty Deed. "Free and clear of all encumbrances" meant that the title being transferred from Ana Vazquez to Pura Castillo was not to be encumbered by any mortgages, judgments or other liens. The Sales Contract was not made contingent upon Pura Castillo obtaining new financing. The relationship between Ana Vazquez and Pura Castillo is not entirely clear. They were obviously well acquainted with each other. The evidence suggests that Pura Castillo's common law husband, Joseph Hardisson, was a close friend of the father of Ana Vazquez. While Pura Castillo and Joseph Hardisson were visiting with Vazquez, they began discussing the possible purchase of the Condominium by Pura Castillo. Yanks first learned about the possible sale of the Condominium to Pura Castillo when Vazquez asked Hernandez-Yanks to represent her. Hernandez-Yanks indicated that she would represent Vazquez in the sale. Vazquez also requested Yanks' assistance in obtaining a loan for Pura Castillo. Yanks advised Vazquez that he did not process loan applications for employees. He suggested that she contact one of the mortgage lenders with whom he did business. Vazquez contacted one such company, Inter-Mortgage Corporation, and obtained a loan application package. Shortly thereafter, a loan application was submitted with InterMortgage Corporation in the name of Pura Castillo. The circumstances surrounding the completion and submittal of that loan application are not entirely clear nor are they necessarily pertinent to this proceeding. The evidence did establish that the loan application contained some false information regarding Pura Castillo's residence and employment. InterMortgage contacted Yanks' office and advised that there were some problems with the application. Vazquez went to InterMortgage's office and retrieved the application. The evidence did not establish that Yanks was aware of the filing of the application with InterMortgage and/or that he knew the application contained any false information. It appears that a similar application with false information may also have been filed with another lender, Dixie Mortgage. There is no indication that Yanks was aware of the filing of this application and/or that he knew it contained false information. The Condominium was subject to a $42,000 mortgage from Standard Federal to Vazquez (the "Standard Federal Mortgage"). The Standard Federal Mortgage was a typical Fannie Mae mortgage and included a commonly used due-on- sale clause in Clause 17. That clause provided for a default by the borrower upon sale of the property unless the mortgagee had consented to the assumption of the mortgage by the purchaser. There were no federal or state laws in existence at the time prohibiting the enforceability of Clause 17. Vazquez had a contract to purchase another home which was contingent upon the sale of her Condominium. Thus, she was under some time pressure to close the sale of the Condominium. When it became apparent that a quick loan could not be arranged for Pura Castillo, Ana Vazquez turned to Yanks for advice. While there is conflicting evidence as to the discussions that took place, the more persuasive evidence established that Yanks agreed to structure a deal that would enable Ana Vazquez to sell the Condominium to Pura Castillo. As discussed in more detail below, Yanks structured a complicated and confusing arrangement whereby Pura Castillo was to make her monthly payments to B & B Equity, which was to play the role of a servicing agent and distribute the payments to the first mortgagee, Standard Federal. While Yanks now claims that after the Standard Federal Mortgage payment was made, the remainder of the monthly payments received by B & B Equity were going to be paid to Vazquez, there is no written agreement confirming this arrangement. It is the usual practice in the industry for mortgage brokers to determine whether there are outstanding mortgages on the property to be sold and to see to it that an existing mortgage is paid off or otherwise taken care of at the time of closing. It is the responsibility of the mortgage broker to contact the institution holding the mortgage to find out if it is assumable. If an existing mortgage has a due-on-sale clause, the mortgage broker would characteristically contact the first lien holder and get an estoppel letter to determine the balance of the loan. The mortgage broker might also seek a waiver from the lender so that the sale could be made without paying off the loan. Without such a waiver, a due-on-sale clause would entitle the original lender to declare the entire original loan due upon sale of the property. Yanks never obtained an estoppel letter or a waiver of the due-on-sale clause from Standard Federal. While Yanks claims that he contacted various persons regarding the enforceability of due-on-sale clauses, he never contacted Standard Federal about the specific clause in its mortgage to Vazquez. There is conflicting evidence regarding the discussions between Yanks and Vazquez regarding the structuring of the transaction. It is clear that Vazquez was more concerned with concluding the transaction rather than understanding the intricacies of it. As discussed in more detail below, the transaction structured by Yanks included several unexplained and/or inappropriate charges. In addition, the loan documentation was confusing and sometimes conflicting and/or contradictory. Vazquez indicated to Yanks that Pura Castillo was prepared to go forward with the sale and a closing was scheduled for June 16, 1989. In preparation for the closing of the sale of her condominium, Vazquez incurred several expenses. On or about March 31, 1989, she paid $275 to have the condominium appraised. On or about April 5, 1989, Vazquez paid $200 to National Title Abstract Company for an update of the abstract. On or about June 15, 1989, she paid $150 to Ticor Title Co. She also paid for a credit report on Pura Castillo. On June 16, 1989, Pura Castillo arrived at the office of Yanks and B & B Investors at 1481 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida, to close on the purchase of the Condominium in accordance with the Sales Contract. Yanks and/or Hernandez- Yanks prepared the closing documents used at the closing. Much of the closing was conducted in Spanish. Yanks is not fluent in Spanish. Hernandez-Yanks, who speaks Spanish, acted as the closing agent and remained throughout the process. Yanks and Vazquez were in and out of the room throughout the closing. During the closing, Pura Castillo was told that B & B Equity was going to be the lender for the transaction. Pura Castillo inquired whether it was necessary for her to have her own attorney. Hernandez-Yanks replied that she could represent all parties and that it was not necessary for Pura Castillo to have her own attorney. At the closing, Pura Castillo presented cashiers checks for $5,800, $7,250 and $5,900 all made payable to the order of Ana Hernandez-Yanks, Trust Account. In addition, either Yanks or Hernandez-Yanks was given a check from Parker Realty in the amount of $2,800 which was the balance of the $7,000 deposit after payment of the $4,200 real estate commission. From the $21,750 brought to the closing, $14,000 was disbursed to Ana Vazquez. As noted above, Vazquez had already paid for the abstract, appraisal and credit report. In addition, as part of her mortgage payment, she had contributed approximately $1,281 to an escrow for taxes and insurance for which she was entitled to be reimbursed. Thus, the net cash that she received from the closing was less than $12,000 from the sale of a $70,000 condominium with a $42,000 mortgage. At the closing, Vazquez executed an "Agreement for Deed" in favor of Pura Castillo. An agreement for deed is a conditional sales contract pursuant to which a seller agrees to sell property to a buyer over a period of time. The seller retains the legal ownership of the property until the full consideration for the purchase is paid. After all the conditions have been met, the seller delivers a deed conveying ownership of the land to the buyer. The Agreement for Deed in this transaction provided as follows: That if said Buyers shall first make the payments and perform the covenants herein mentioned on their part to be performed, the said Sellers hereby covenant and agree to convey and assure to the Buyers or their heirs or assigns, in fee simple, clear of all encumbrances whatever, by good and sufficient Warranty Deed...[the condominium] And the Buyers hereby covenant and agree to pay to the Sellers the sum of $70,000 to be paid as follows: $19,073.12 cash in hand, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and $704.32 or more per month on or before the 16th day of each and every month after the date of this instrument, to be mailed to the Sellers' address given herein, with interest at the rate of 11 percent, per annum on the whole sum remaining from time to time unpaid,... Arguably, the Agreement for Deed required Pura Castillo to make monthly payments to Vazquez of $704.32 plus interest on the outstanding balance. However, at the closing, Yanks provided Pura Castillo with a letter which explained that her monthly payments of $704.32 included $499.97 for principal and interest, $142.35 for real estate taxes and $62 for insurance. At the closing, Pura Castillo executed a mortgage (the "Mortgage") in favor of B & B Equity as mortgagee. The Mortgage stated that it secured an indebtedness of $52,500 and a promissory note for that amount was executed by Pura Castillo to B & B Equity at the closing. The Mortgage was similar in form and content to a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac mortgage form, except it included some additional provisions stating that it was a "Wraparound Mortgage." A wraparound mortgage is a financing device that is sometimes used when a seller of a piece of property agrees to take back and finance a portion of the difference between an existing first mortgage which is not being assumed or satisfied and the sales price for the property. Typically, the mortgagor on the first mortgage is the seller of the property and the mortgagee on the wraparound mortgage. The wraparound mortgage becomes a second or other junior mortgage behind the existing mortgage. The mortgagee of the wraparound mortgage agrees to continue making payments on the existing primary mortgage, at least so long as payments are made under the wraparound mortgage. Page 8 of the Mortgage included the following language: This is a Wraparound Mortgage. This wraparound mortgage is a second mortgage. It is inferior to certain mortgage [sic], herein called the first mortgage which covers the above described property at the time of execution of this wraparound mortgage. The wraparound mortgagee shall be excluded from any terms or conditions of the prior mortgagees. The wraparound mortgagee's obligation to pay the prior mortgages is limites [sic] to funds received from the wraparound mortgagor. For a number of reasons, the use of a wraparound mortgage in this transaction was totally inappropriate. The first page of the mortgage included a number of warranties including the following: The mortgagor hereby covenants with and warrants to the Mortgagee that the Mortgagor is indefeasibly seized with the absolute and fee simple title to said property. This warranty is inconsistent with the ownership interest that the Mortgagor, Pura Castillo, had as a result of this transaction. Pura Castillo's only claim to title was via the Agreement for Deed and she was not indefeasibly seized with the fee simple title. As noted above, the Mortgage states that it secures an indebtedness of $52,500 and a promissory note (the "Note") for that amount was executed by Pura Castillo to B & B Equity at the closing. That Note required Pura Castillo to make payments directly to B & B Equity. However, the Agreement for Deed calls for Pura Castillo to make payments to Vazquez. Moreover, Pura Castillo signed the Note obligating herself to make payments on a $52,500 indebtedness to B & B Equity even though the Standard Federal Mortgage was not satisfied and had a remaining balance of $42,000. In other words, the result of this transaction, at least as it appeared on the public records, is that a $70,000 condominium was encumbered by two separate mortgages (the Standard Federal Mortgage and the "Wraparound Mortgage") securing separate promissory notes totalling more than $94,000. At no time prior to or during the closing did Yanks or Hernandez-Yanks explain to Pura Castillo that an Agreement for Deed was being utilized in this transaction and that she would not obtain full legal title until all of the mortgages were paid off. Furthermore, neither Yanks or Hernandez-Yanks explained to Pura Castillo that the mortgage she signed in favor of B & B Equity was a wraparound second mortgage. While Yanks contends that Pura Castillo had plenty of opportunity to review the documents and ask questions regarding them, she was clearly an unsophisticated buyer who was incapable of deciphering the confusing and ambiguous documentation for this clumsily crafted transaction. In sum, the use of an agreement for deed and a wraparound mortgage in the same transaction was redundant, confusing and illogical. Moreover, Yanks' efforts in this transaction clearly violated the due-on-sale clause (Clause 17) in Standard Federal's existing first mortgage. The Department has suggested that the transaction was a calculated fraud with some undefined goal. After considering all the evidence, the transaction can more accurately be described as an awkward attempt at creative financing which included a number of hidden and inappropriate charges for the benefit of Yanks and/or B & B Equity. Yanks contends that Vazquez was desperate to close the sale and authorized him to proceed with whatever financing he could arrange so long as she netted $14,000 from the sale. He claims that she agreed to the wraparound mortgage as the only way to proceed with the deal under the circumstances. Under this arrangement, he contends that B & B was authorized to retain any additional proceeds as compensation for serving as a servicing agent on the wraparound mortgage. Even if this explanation is accepted, there are a number of problems with the actions of Yanks and B & B Equity in this transaction. First of all, there was no written servicing agreement setting forth the obligations of the servicing agent nor is there any delineation of the amount of money to be paid for servicing the wraparound mortgage. Moreover, the Agreement For Deed and the Promissory Note call for Pura Castillo to make payments of slightly more than $700 per month. These payments exceed the monthly payments due under the Standard Federal Mortgage. However, there is no written delineation of how the additional payments received each month were to be disbursed. Finally, the servicing arrangement was never explained to Pura Castillo and the documentation for the transaction was very confusing and often contradictory. There is no closing statement for the transaction that accurately reflects all of the disbursements made from the proceeds of the closing. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 is a closing statement signed by both Vazquez and Pura Castillo and purports to delineate certain expenses paid from the proceeds of the sale. Petitioner's Exhibit 7 is an unsigned closing statement which Yanks contends he prepared for use at the closing of the loan. He claims that, after the closing, he found out that Vazquez substituted Petitioner's Exhibit 23 for the closing statement that he intended to be used because she thought it more accurately depicted the fees as she had discussed them with Pura Castillo. This explanation is rejected as not credible. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 was the only closing statement signed by both the buyer and seller. As noted above, Vazquez was in and out during the closing. Hernandez-Yanks was present throughout the closing. The more credible evidence established that Petitioner's Exhibit 23 was the closing statement presented at the closing and executed by the participants. Neither closing statement accurately explains how all of the funds from the sale were disbursed. Thus, it is impossible to determine conclusively how much money Yanks and/or B & B Equity received from the closing. Both statements include some charges which are inappropriate or questionable. Furthermore, it is clear that Yanks and/or B & B received more than either statement indicated. Both closing statements reflect a payment of $600 for title insurance. However, the evidence established that no title insurance policy was ever issued. Vazquez paid for a title insurance commitment prior to the closing. Such a commitment is typically issued by a title insurance company prior to a real estate transaction and is a contractual agreement by the title insurer to issue a policy of title insurance upon compliance with certain terms and conditions. The actual title insurance policy is not issued until after the transaction has closed. The title insurance policy, not the commitment, insures the main insured against certain defects in title. The $600 charge for title insurance reflected on both closing statements was totally inappropriate in this case since no title policy was ever issued. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 includes a number of charges assessed to the buyer which were wholly inappropriate to this transaction. For example, the closing statement included a $500 charge for FNMA underwriting. This fee is charged by the institution underwriting a mortgage loan for compliance with Fannie Mae guidelines. Since the Mortgage in this case was clearly not intended to be sold to a Fannie Mae pool, the FNMA charge was not appropriate. Similarly, the closing statement included a $250 charge for a warehouse fee. This is a fee paid to institutions to cover the cost of a warehouse line of credit and is totally inapplicable to the transaction involved in this case. The closing statement also included a photo fee of $25, a lender's inspection fee of $150 and a survey fee of $225. There is no indication that any photos were taken, an inspection was conducted or a survey was prepared. Petitioner's Exhibit 23 also included a loan origination fee of $1,375 and brokerage fees of $1,575. Petitioner's Exhibit 7 included a lump sum brokerage fee of $5000, but did not include any of the other charges listed in this paragraph. There is no dispute that Yanks and/or his firm were paid mortgage brokerage fees out of the proceeds of the closing. These fees are reflected on both of the closing statements (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 23). A mortgage broker is paid a fee to negotiate a mortgage loan transaction for another party. In other words, he is retained to find a lender for a potential borrower. Under a mortgage servicing agreement, the servicer is paid a fee to handle the collection and disbursement of payments on a mortgage loan. Any fees paid for servicing a loan should be separately itemized and disclosed. It is not appropriate for a person who is to service a loan to receive what has been disclosed as a broker fee. Irrespective of which closing statement is deemed authentic, the evidence established that Yanks and/or B & B Equity received significantly more money from the closing than was reflected on either closing statement. As indicated above, $21,750 cash was presented at the closing, of which $14,000 was paid to Vazquez. According to Petitioner's Exhibit 7, there was $6,123.35 in closing costs (including a $5,000 brokerage fee). Thus, there is at least $1,626.65 in cash that is not reflected on the closing statement. Yanks contends that Vazquez told him to keep this money in return for servicing the loan. This contention is rejected as not credible. Similarly, Petitioner's Exhibit 23 indicates closing costs of $6,379 (including the charges in paragraph 89 above). Thus, there is $1371 unaccounted for. Moreover, it is clear that Yanks and/or B & B received in excess of $6,500 which is not readily discernible from the face of the closing statement. Subsequent to the closing, B & B Equity received at least five monthly payments of $704.32 on the Wraparound Mortgage from Joseph L. Hardisson, the common law husband of Pura Castillo. B & B Equity apparently distributed some of these funds in accordance with its claimed role of "servicing agent." However, on at least one occasion in late 1989, a check issued by B & B Equity to pay the Standard Federal Mortgage was returned for insufficient funds. In addition, a check issued by B & B Equity in the amount of $700 to Ana Vazquez in December of 1989 bounced. At some point in late 1989 or early 1990, Pura Castillo became concerned when she learned that the Standard Federal Mortgage had not been paid off. In January or February 1990, Pura Castillo and her husband came to Florida and attempted to contact Yanks regarding the transaction and the irregularities surrounding it. Ultimately, Pura Castillo filed a complaint with the Department and also filed a civil suit in Circuit Court seeking cancellation of the Mortgage and the issuance of a warranty deed in her favor. On April 17, 1990, Vazquez executed a warranty deed to Pura Castillo. Vazquez states that she felt obligated to convey all of her interest in the property to Pura Castillo in view of the confusing and unfair circumstances surrounding the initial transaction. On October 23, 1990, Yanks and B & B Equity entered into a Settlement Agreement with Pura Castillo pursuant to which they paid Pura Castillo $12,000 and the wraparound mortgage was cancelled of record. The Settlement Agreement also resulted in the dismissal of the civil suit and called for Pura Castillo to withdraw her complaint filed with the Department. Despite this withdrawal, the Department has chosen to proceed with this administrative action.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered finding Respondents B & B Investors, Yanks and Ana Hernandez-Yanks guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint, finding them not guilty of Count VI and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000 which should be payable jointly and severally. Yanks and B & B Investors should also be required to repay $9,000 to Calvary Chapel within 30 days after the rendition of the Final Order. Failure to repay this sum should be a basis for the imposition of additional penalties, including revocation. The mortgage brokerage licenses of Yanks and B & B Investors should be suspended for one (1) year for their actions in connection with the Calvary Chapel transaction. A Cease and Desist Order should also be entered against Ana Hernandez- Yanks prohibiting her from any future violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, from engaging in any act within the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and from being an ultimate equitable owner of a business license pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. The facts surrounding her trust account should be reported to the Florida Bar for investigation. A Final Order should also be entered finding Yanks, Hernandez-Yanks, and B & B Equity guilty of the violations alleged in Counts VIII, IX, and XI, finding Yanks and B & B Equity guilty of the violations alleged in Counts XII and finding Hernandez-Yanks guilty of violations alleged in Count XIII of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Final Order should find the Respondents not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts X and XIV. Based upon the foregoing, the Department should impose an administrative fine of $5,000. The mortgage brokerage license of Yanks should be suspended for a period of three years to run consecutively with the suspension issued in connection with the Calvary Chapel transaction. Respondents should also be required to repay $6,040.12 to Ana Vazquez for inappropriate and undisclosed charges made at the closing. The collection of all fines and/or assessments against Ana Hernandez- Yanks and/or B & B Investors should be suspended pending approval of the Bankruptcy Court. In view of the Voluntary Dismissal filed on November 9, 1993, the Final Order should formally dismiss the Application Case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1994. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 18th day of August 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner presented one witness that had audited the books and records of Respondent. This audit revealed that Respondent had handled some 350 transactions involving mortgages and that on approximately 50 of those transactions the Respondent had withheld a commission more than authorized by statute or department rule. The witness testified to only a few of those transactions shown on his work sheet attached to a deposition admitted into evidence. Thereafter Respondent stipulated that if asked about all of the other transactions shown on the work sheet, this witness, and the auditor who performed the balance of the audit, would testify the same for those other transactions, viz. that the worksheet figures were extracted from the records of Respondent and the authorized commissions shown thereon were computed using either the statutory method or the rule method and that both methods would give the same results. These figures show that the Respondent overcharged the borrower on approximately 50 transactions as alleged. On approximately 2/3 of the transactions the funds were remitted to a master broker, and on the other 1/3 the funds were remitted to the borrower. Further, that the notes and mortgages were received by Respondent for delivery to his client some 4 to 6 weeks after he had disbursed the money from his trust account. Upon expiration of Petitioner's case Respondent renewed his motions for dismissal and further moved for dismissal on the grounds that the funds for a majority of the transactions involved were remitted to another broker, and for those remitted directly to the borrower (developer) the charges were not excessive but those actually proposed by the borrower-developer. This motion was denied and Respondent then testified in his own behalf. Richard Zaloudek percent has been a licensed mortgage broker since 1960 and is also a licensed real estate broker. He has been in the mortgage brokerage business since 1948. Prior to obtaining his mortgage broker's license he dealt in FHA mortgages which were exempt. He renewed his license automatically each year until September, 1975 when he received no response from the Comptroller's Office to his application for renewal. Since a valid license is required to operate as a mortgage broker, Respondent has been unable to so act since the expiration of his license in September, 1975. When Respondent was approached by the master broker representing Mortgage Development Corporation to sell mortgages for it, he questioned the legality of such transactions. He was presented with a copy of the opinion of the office of the Comptroller, Division of Securities, dated January 10, 1973. This indicated that the notes secured by mortgages that he was being solicited to sell complied with the statutes and rules affecting securities. Thereafter he advertised in the news media that he had these high interest paying notes secured by mortgage for sale. When a client came into his office to invest he would take their investment, deposit same in his trust account, and then forward to the master broker or borrower the deposit less the commission the borrower and master broker had authorized him to deduct. Thereafter the note and mortgage was mailed to Respondent who presented it to the investor. As a result of many people losing money in investments in promissory notes secured by mortgages on land, newspaper coverage of various facets of the land development industry became widespread. In several cases the various mortgage brokers, such as Respondent herein, were named in these articles in the newspapers; and press reports were issued by the Comptroller's Office that certain licenses, including that of Respondent, had been revoked. Because of the adverse publicity, not only did Respondent's mortgage brokerage business drop off and stop completely when his license was not renewed in September, 1975, but also his business as a real estate broker suffered. Respondent's testimony that he lost real estate listings totaling some two million dollars was not rebutted. Nor was his testimony that this represented a loss of some $70,000 in income.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent was a licensed Mortgage Broker and the principal broker for Mortgage Associates of Countryside, located at 2623 Enterprise Rd., Clearwater, Florida. The Department was and is the state agency charged with regulating the activities of mortgage brokers in this state. In September, 1987, Andrew Grosmaire and Kevin Gonzalez, compliance officer and financial examiner, respectively, for the Department, pursuant to a complaint from Mark Snyder, conducted an examination of Respondent's affairs as they pertained to his operation as a mortgage broker. During the survey, which covered the period from August, 1986 through August, 1987, Mr. Grosmaire and Mr. Gonzalez examined between 50 and 60 loan files which had culminated in loan closings. In addition, they examined loan files which did not result in closings, bank account records, and other of Respondent's miscellaneous records. In order for an appropriate audit of a closed loan file to be conducted, it is imperative that the loan closing statement be included. Without it, the examiner cannot accurately determine what, if any, closing costs the borrower actually paid and if closing costs paid were consistent with those disclosed by the broker on the Good Faith Estimate Form at the initial interview. Of the closed loan files reviewed, these closing statements were missing from seven files. Respondent admits that several closed loan files did not have the required closing costs statement form enclosed. He attributes this, however, to the failure of his processor, an assistant, to place the closing statement in the file. They were not presented at hearing or thereafter. The investigators examined the Good Faith Estimate Forms in those files which culminated in loans and found that the form utilized by the Respondent failed to contain language, required by statute, which summarized the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. Respondent contends that the pertinent statutory section was not in existence at the time he was engaged in mortgage brokerage activities. This was found to be not true. The Act became effective July 1, 1986 and the files surveyed were from the period August, 1986 through August, 1987. Examination of the Good Faith Estimate Forms used by the Respondent in each of the cases which culminated in loan closing revealed that Respondent consistently underestimated closing costs. This resulted in the borrowers generally paying higher closing costs than was initially disclosed to them. On -loans applied for by Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, Mr. Iyer, and Mr. Toland. Respondent redistributed loan points to himself in an amount higher than that which was agreed to by the parties. In the Toland case, Mr. Toland agreed to pay a 1% loan origination fee in the amount of $996.00. The settlement statement dated approximately 2 months later reflected that Toland paid Respondent a loan origination fee of $1,128.00 in addition to a 1% ($664.00) loan discount fee to the lender. This latter mentioned discount fee was not disclosed in advance to Mr. Toland on the estimate form nor was the excess loan origination fee charged. It should be noted here that a second Good Faith Estimate Form, dated nine days after the original, reflecting a 3% loan origination fee, was found in the file. Though signed by Respondent, this second form was not signed by the borrower as required. It cannot, therefore, serve to support Respondent's claim that he advised the Tolands of the higher cost by this second form. There is no showing that the Tolands were aware of it. In the Iyer case, the estimate form dated September 19, 1986 reflected a points and origination charge of $1,332.50 which is 1% of the mortgage loan amount of $133,250.00. The Iyers were subsequently approved for a mortgage in the amount of $145,600.00. The closing statement dated March 6, 1987, almost six months later, reflects that the Iyers paid a 2% loan origination fee of $2,740.00 to Mortgage Associates and a load discount fee of $685.00 to the lender. Here again the Respondent claims that a second cost estimate form reflecting a 2% point and origination fee of $2,912.00 was subsequently executed by the Iyers. However, this second form, found in Respondent's files, is undated and fails to reflect the signature of either Respondent or the Iyers. It cannot, therefore, serve as proof that the Iyers were made aware of the change. It does appear, as Respondent claims, that the bottom of the second form, (here, a copy) , was excluded from the copy when made, but there is no evidence either in the form of a signed copy or through the testimony of the Iyers, that they were aware of the change. Consequently, it is found that the Iyers had not been made aware of the second estimate and had not agreed to pay as much as they did, in advance. As to the Snyder closing, both Mr. Snyder and Respondent agree that it was their understanding at the time the loan was applied for, that Respondent would attempt to obtain a lower interest rate for them than that which was agreed upon in the application and in the event a lower rate was obtained, Respondent's commission points would remain the same as agreed upon in the brokerage agreement. In that case, as Respondent points out, his commission is based on the mortgage amount, not the interest rate, and he would be entitled to the agreed upon percentage of the loan face amount regardless of the interest rate charged by the lender on the loan. The Snyders had agreed to a 1% commission to Respondent plus a 1% loan origination fee to the lender. When the lender agreed to lend at par, without an origination fee, Respondent appropriated that 1% to himself, thereby collecting the entire 2% called for in the application. This was improper. Respondent's claim that it is an accepted practice in the trade is rejected. The Snyders initially made demand upon the Respondent for reimbursement of that additional 1% and ultimately had to hire an attorney to pursue their interests. Respondent subsequently made a $400 partial reimbursement payment of the amount owed but nothing further notwithstanding the fact that the Snyders ultimately secured a Judgement in Pinellas County Court against him for $1,082.52 plus interest, attorney's fees and costs. As a result, the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Guarantee Fund will reimburse the Snyders for their loss. According to the investigators, the Snyders Toland, and Iyer files, in addition to the problems described, also reflected that Respondent received payments for other items which should have gone into an escrow account. These included such things as credit reports and appraisal fees. The Department requires that any money received by a broker other than as commission, be placed in the broker's escrow account pending proper disbursement. Respondent did not have an escrow account. Mr. Gonzalez looked at Respondent's overall operation, including closed files, in an attempt to correlate between income and outgo to insure that Respondent's operation was in compliance with the statute. In addition to his search for an escrow account, Mr. Gonzalez also examined Respondent's "Loan Journal" which by statute is required to contain an entry for each transaction in each loan. The purpose of this journal is to provide a continuing record to show when each item in the loan processing was accomplished. In Mr. Gonzalez' opinion, the Respondent's journal was inadequate. It contained repeat and conflicting entries for specific items which hindered the investigators' ability to determine an audit trail. In addition, all required information was not put in the journal in complete form in each account. In the opinion of the investigators, the Respondent's violations were significant in that they made it impossible for the Department to determine compliance with statutes and Department rules and inhibited the compliance examination. All in all, Respondent's way of handling his accounts, his failure to maintain an escrow account, and his unauthorized increase in commission income, all indicated his actions were not in the best interest of his clients. The investigators concluded that clients funds were not being handled properly and that the purpose of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to protect the consumer, was not being met. In Mr. Gonzalez' opinion, Respondent's method of business constituted incompetence as a mortgage broker and "possibly" fraudulent practice. It is so found. Both Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Grosmaire indicated they had extreme difficulty in attempting to locate Respondent after the complaint was filed by Mr. Snyder, in order to conduct their examination. They finally located him at a site different from that which appeared in the records of the Department. Respondent contends that the Department had been notified in writing within the required time, of his change of location when he filed a notice of fictitious name. He contends that after filing his notice of name change, he received no response from the state but took no action to inquire whether the change had been made. In any case, his current address was in the phone book and had the agents chose to look there, they would have found him. Respondent contends that the good faith estimates required by the statute are just that, an estimate, and that actual figures may vary from and exceed these estimates. This is true, but there is a procedure provided whereby the broker is to notify the client of a change in advance and if the change exceeds a certain amount, it may constitute grounds for voiding the contract. In paragraph 7 of the complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent used a form for the estimates which failed to contain a statement defining the maximum estimated closing costs. Review of the statement offered herein reflect this to be a fair analysis. However, Respondent claims that certain items cannot be predicted accurately in that some companies charge more than others for the same item and it was his practice to insert in the estimate portion of the form a "worst case scenario." However, at no time did he address in his form what could be the maximum a prospective purchaser might be expected to pay. Respondent "doesn't like" the total picture painted by the investigators concerning his operation. He claims it is cot a fair and accurate representation. In many cases, he claims, he expended funds on behalf of clients in excess of that he received in either commission or reimbursement and even though he may have received more than entitled in some cases, it "evens out over a period of time." Though this may be so, it is no way to do business. The state requires the keeping of accurate records and, just as the broker should not be required to assume responsibility for other than his own misconduct, neither should the client be required to pay more than is his legal obligation. Respondent professes to know the mortgage business and he resents having his qualifications as a mortgage broker questioned. In his opinion, he has trained himself well and has acted in good faith on the basis of the information available to him at the time. He ignores the impact of the Judgement of the court in the Snyder matter because he feels it was "unilateral." He believes the law is designed to protect the client and he wants to know who protects the broker. It is for that very reason, he contends, that fees paid in advance are not refundable. Mr. Sample feels the Department should be more informative to the brokers and get the governing regulations updated more quickly. Respondent cherishes his license and claims he needs it to make a living. He went out of business once before, several years ago, because of bad business conditions, (the reason he uses for not complying with the court order), but did not declare bankruptcy because he wanted to go back into business and pay off the judgements against him. Though he has been back in business for several years, he has failed to make any effort to pay off any of his former creditors even though in his former operation, he improperly tapped his escrow account for other business expenses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Howard E. Sample's license as a mortgage broker in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 88-2858 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Insofar as Petitioner's submission refers to testimony of a witness, that is considered as a proposed finding of fact. FOR THE PETITIONER; Accepted and incorporated herein & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as contra to the evidence A conclusion of law and not a finding of fact & 11a Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein - 18. Accepted 19. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein 25. & 26. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted &-29. Accepted 30. - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein FOR THE RESPONDENT: Nothing Submitted by way of Findings of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson St. Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Howard E. Sample 2465 Northside Drive Apartment 505 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Honorable Gerald Lewis Ccmptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 3 2399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Department, a state agency, initiated the underlying proceeding when the Cease and Desist Order was filed on February 20, 1990. Petitioner, CGFS, Inc., is a corporation which has its principal office in this state. At the time the action was initiated by the Department, the corporation had less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than $2 million dollars. Petitioner DeBellonia is the sole shareholder in the subchapter S corporation and does not have an independent claim for attorney's fees and cost. A Final Order dismissing the Cease and Desist Order was entered in favor of the Petitioners DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. on October 16, 1990. The time for seeking judicial review of that order has expired and the order has become final agency action as a matter of law. The underlying Cease and Desist Order directed to Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. was based upon a complaint made by Ms. Connie Jones, a client of CGFS, Inc. who dealt with Mr. DeBellonia. Ms. Jones, who contacted the Department, told representatives of the agency that Mr. DeBellonia, as president of CGFS, Inc., had agreed to arrange a mortgage loan on her behalf which was to be secured by real estate in Dade City, Florida. During the time period in which Ms. Jones had the business meeting with DeBellonia, neither Mr. DeBellonia nor CGFS, Inc. were licensed as a mortgage broker or a mortgage brokerage business. If the business transaction had occurred as originally represented by Ms. Jones, both Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. would have been in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Based upon the complaint initiated by Ms. Jones prior to the Department's filing of the Cease and Desist Order, the agency had reason to believe that Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. were violating or about to violate the law by acting as a mortgage broker and mortgage brokerage business without the proper licenses. Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. were able to reveal during the formal hearing process that Ms. Jones' impressions of what occurred during her meeting with Respondent DeBellonia were faulty. It was necessary, however, for the Hearing Officer to resolve the question of what weight should be given to Ms. Jones' testimony and what credibility assessment should be made to resolve the disputed issues of material facts involved in the case. The Department disputes portions of the application for attorney's fees and costs relating to time spent with a private investigator and the review of a title search. Based upon the attorney's testimony at hearing in which he gave the reasons for the use of the investigator and the title search, the 1.33 hours spent by him on these matters during his preparation of the case was reasonable and necessary. As there is no other dispute as to the reasonableness of the hours spent by Mr. Mone in defending the Petitioners, it is determined that the 11.65 hours he spent in defending CGFS, Inc. as to the Cease and Desist Order should be included in his fee charges. Although the Hearing Officer specifically finds that $300.00 an hour is a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney of Mr. Mone's experience when the matter pursued is a civil action, this case is an administrative proceeding. Based upon the affidavit of Burton Wiand, whose law practice includes civil trial litigation as well as administrative law proceedings, $150.00 per hour is a reasonable fee within the Pinellas County and Hillsborough County area for services similar to those reasonably required from Mr. Mone in these proceedings. Great weight is given to Mr. Wiand's affidavit, and $150.00 per hour is a reasonable fee in this case.
