Findings Of Fact Respondent William H. Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced on November 11, 1993. This adjudication was at least peripherally related to a mortgage loan he brokered which had closed on June 21, 1989. Mr. Hughes was deposed concerning the loan on December 20, 1991, in which deposition he lied. He was indicted on May 27, 1993 and pled guilty to perjury on September 3, 1993. At all times material, William H. Hughes held individual mortgage broker license number MB 262740745. He is a Respondent herein because he was convicted of perjury. DBF was immediately notified concerning Mr. Hughes' perjury conviction. The agency did not file its amended disciplinary action until July 22, 1994. It may be inferred that there was an original complaint to amend, but its date is not of record. The agency's chief witness testified that the agency did not do an immediate field audit of Mr. Hughes' business upon notification, did not file an immediate cease and desist order against his mortgage brokerage activities, and has at no time considered Mr. Hughes continuing to operate as a mortgage broker to be an imminent threat or danger to consumers. (TR 113-116) Apparently, periodic DBF field audits since the amended administrative complaint was referred to DOAH also have not caused DBF to move to expedite the instant case or take any emergency action. Mr. Hughes operated as a sole proprietorship, license number MBB 591623417, from 1968 until May 17, 1993. The loan at issue was closed June 21, 1989. The deposition that gave rise to the perjury occurred on December 20, 1991. The plea was September 3, 1993. The adjusdication of guilt was November 11, 1993. The sole proprietorship license was current until August 31, 1994. The sole proprietorship is a Respondent in this cause because its license was in effect at all times material. On May 17, 1993, Respondent Hughes converted his sole proprietorship to a corporation in which he was sole stockholder, President, and qualifying broker with license number MB 262740745. Janeen Davis was Vice President. This corporate entity was known as, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," license number MBB 593113739. On May 27, 1993, Respondent Hughes was indicted. On September 3, 1993, he entered a guilty plea to perjury. The corporation of which he was sole principal continued to operate until September 23, 1993, when the stock was transferred to James Etheredge as sole stockholder, with Respondent Hughes as qualifying broker. Corporate mortgage brokerage license MBB 593113739, continued in effect until January 12, 1994. This corporation is a Respondent herein because its license was in effect at the time of Mr. Hughes' guilty plea and adjudication of guilt. On November 17, 1993, James Etheredge applied for a corporate mortgage brokerage license in the name of the "new" corporation, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," owned exclusively by Etheredge, with Janeen Davis as qualifying broker instead of Respondent Hughes. On November 23, 1993, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced. On January 12, 1994, a new corporate mortgage broker license, number MBB 593113739-001, was issued to the new corporate entity. Respondent Hughes continued to work for the new firm as a mortgage broker. This corporate license, number MBB-593113739- 001, was renewed September 1, 1994 and is current through August 31, 1996. That licensed corporation is not a Respondent herein and DBF has stipulated that it has no charges or evidence against it. (TR 19-21; 47-48; 50). In 1989, William Neufeld had come to Respondent Hughes seeking a mortgage loan for a condominium located at B-801 Grand Mariner, Destin, Florida. Sugar Sands Development Corporation was purportedly selling the condominium to Neufeld. The purported purchase price was approximately eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). Appraisals were provided to Respondent Hughes by the Seller to verify the value of the property. Respondent Hughes forwarded Neufeld's mortgage loan application to Carteret Savings Bank, which then accepted the loan. During this period of time, Carteret regularly called for a review appraisal for every loan, regardless of who did the original appraisal. Carteret regularly ordered a review from a different appraisal company to make sure that property valuation was true and accurate. It is inferred that Carteret performed its own separate appraisal on the B-801 Grand Mariner condomimium as it did in every other case. The parties to the loan brokered by Respondent Hughes were Sugar Sands Development Corporation as Seller, William Neufeld as Purchaser, and Carteret Savings Bank as Lender. Carteret Savings Bank funded the mortgage for the condominium after its own investigation and upon agreed terms. Respondent Hughes personally brokered the mortgage loan between William Neufeld and Sugar Sands Development Corporation, which was funded by Carteret Savings Bank. He received a $20,475 commission therefor. His commission amount was based upon points, which was in no way remarkable in the mortgage business. William Neufeld subsequently defaulted on the loan. At the time of the transaction, Respondent Hughes knew that the condominium was owned by an entity named Altus Bank prior to its transfer to Sugar Sands Development Corporation. On December 20, 1991, Respondent Hughes was deposed in a civil action resulting from Neufeld's default, Case No. 91-30398-RV, Carteret Savings Bank, F.A., v. First American Title Insurance Co., Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. In his deposition, Respondent Hughes testified as follows: Q: When, if ever, did you find out an entity by the name of Altus Bank was involved in these transactions? A: I don't know if -- to my knowledge, I did not know -- Altus wasn't involved in our transaction. We never dealt with Altus at all. So, to my knowledge, I don't know if I knew Altus was even involved in this unit until after this had already closed, because here again we were presented a contract of sale, we dealt directly with our customer, the buyer and really never had an occasion to even deal with the seller. * * * Q: You did not know, you had not heard any rumors, you had no indication whatsoever that Altus Bank had any interest in this unit at any time prior to the FBI coming to talk to you a year ago? A: No. I think that's the first time I knew that Altus was involved. Respondent Hughes was subsequently indicted on May 27, 1993 in Case No. 93-03069-01/RV, United States v. William H. Hughes, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. The indictment contained nine felony counts relating to an alleged "flip transaction" on the subject condominium involving Altus Bank, Sugar Sands Development Corporation as "straw man", and William Neufeld, the purpose of which was to artificially inflate the condominium's real property value and obtain an inflated loan amount of approximately $800,000 in loan proceeds for property truly valued at only approximately $385,000. The indictment alerted Carteret Savings Bank, which has since gone out of business, and other lending institutions to audit Respondent Hughes' transactions with them and to otherwise institute quality control reviews of loans he had placed with them. No discrepancies or dishonest dealings of any kind were uncovered by these institutions. On September 3, 1993, Respondent Hughes pled guilty to one count of engaging in perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1623, based exclusively upon his deposition testimony quoted supra. The remaining eight felony counts were dismissed. These counts were the counts alleging that Mr. Hughes knew of the "flip transaction" aspects of the loan. Exhibit P-9 shows the foregoing to have been a plea bargain which encompassed evidentiary factors. It was not merely a "plea of convenience." At formal hearing herein, Respondent Hughes admitted that knowing the question in the deposition, he gave the wrong answer. He has accepted responsibility for that wrong answer. However, he credibly denied any knowledge that a flip transaction was intended. He explained that he had understood that the loan amount was determined upon independent evaluations and appraisals which included projected renovation costs to be expended to conform the condominium to the needs of the Purchaser, Mr. Neufeld. On November 23, 1993, a federal judgment was entered against Respondent Hughes. Pursuant to that judgment, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1623 by engaging in perjury. He was ordered to pay a special assessment of $50.00; to pay $1,724.50 in juror fees; was placed on probation for a term of three years; and was placed on home detention for a period of six months. Respondent Hughes' probation is not scheduled to end until November 1996. Respondent Hughes has continued to practice as a mortgage broker without interruption during the eighteen months since his conviction and is currently employed as a mortgage broker by William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc., the firm reconstituted with Mr. Etheredge as the sole stockholder and Janeen Davis as its qualifying agent as of January 12, 1994. See, supra. Respondent Hughes has practiced his profession since 1968 (27 years) with only this one bad incident on his record. Respondent Hughes continues to enjoy a good reputation in his wider mortgage brokerage business community, although the reputation testimony herein is diminished by the fact that many of those who have dealt with him and who have expressed reputation opinions to the witnesses who testified were not aware of his perjury conviction or its circumstances. Respondent Hughes' reputation for truth and veracity and for fair dealing in the mortgage brokerage community as it currently exists within the Florida Panhandle has remained "good" and "very good" since knowledge of his perjury conviction has become known in that community. Two mortgage brokers, two employees of lending institutions, one attorney and one bank officer testified as fact witnesses that they were willing to deal with Mr. Hughes as a mortgage broker in the future, despite their knowledge of his perjury conviction. Two of these persons were formerly employed by Carteret Savings Bank and were fully aware of all circumstances of his criminal case. DBF's only expressed reason for requesting license revocation instead of other permissible disciplinary penalties was its perception that the perjury in this case was directly related to the transaction of mortgage brokerage business.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order that: Finds Respondent Hughes individually, license MB 262740745, is guilty of the charged offense; Assesses an administrative fine against Respondent Hughes individually for $3,000, payable within 10 days of entry of the final order; and Places Respondent Hughes on probation until November 30, 1996, termination of probation to be conditioned upon his successful completion of his federal sentence; his practicing during probation under the supervision of a broker approved by DBF, and his being subject during this probation to unannounced DBF audit and review of all his transactions; and further providing that any violation of the final order, any discrepancy in his accounts, or any violation of Chapter 494 F.S. during his probationary period would subject him to immediate and summary revocation of his license. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RO 94-5114 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-8, 24-26 are covered in FOF 1-8 as necessary. Otherwise accepted but not adopted. 9-20, 22-23 Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 21, 27-31 Rejected as conclusions of law or legal argument, not proposed findings of fact Respondent's PFOF: 1-7 are introductory and labelled "Statement of the Case." They are covered within the "Preliminary Statement" of the Recommended Order. 8-17, 20-21, Accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate 23, 25-27 and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 18, 24 Rejected as a conclusion of law, not a proposed finding of fact 19 Irrelevant 22 Accepted only as modified and covered in FOF 27-29 COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 J. Ladon Dewrell, Esquire Post Office Box 1510 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32541 Honorable Robert Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact 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.
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 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 relevant hereto, James W. McKibbon was not licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida (Exhibit 1). MorBanc Financial Corporation was initially registered as a mortgage broker in Florida on February 27, 1989, and remained registered through June 15, 1990 (Exhibit 1). In August 1988, Respondent was employed by Sovereign Savings Bank to procure qualified home purchases needing mortgage money to be lent by Sovereign. MorBanc Financial Corporation was incorporated circa 1988 to become a mortgage brokerage firm. It opened a bank account and an office from funds contributed by its organizers. Respondent was offered shares in MorBanc and was elected president of the company. No evidence was submitted that Respondent was an investor in MorBanc. Thomas Pollak moved to Florida in 1988 and contracted to purchase a residence. The real estate agent with whom he was working recommended he seek a loan through MorBanc which was located in the same building with the real estate agent. Pollak assumed that MorBanc was a licensed mortgage broker in Florida. McKibbon's business card shows him as President of MorBanc Financial Corporation and lists FHA-VA-Conventional -- presumably loans that can be brokered by MorBanc. Respondent never told Pollak that he or MorBanc were mortgage brokers, and no applications for a mortgage loan completed by Pollak contained the name MorBanc. Instead, all of the application forms used were those used by Sovereign Savings Bank, and the loan application was submitted to Sovereign Savings Bank. The bank paid Respondent for procuring loans. MorBanc, prior to becoming registered as a mortgage broker, processed no loans from clients procured by Respondent McKibbon and paid McKibbon no commission or other compensation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against James W. McKibbon that he acted as a mortgage broker without being licensed to do so in Florida be dismissed. ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings Not Accepted. 2. Respondent helped set up the furniture in the office that was provided by one of the financial founders of MorBanc. Not accurate to call Respondent "instrumental" in this task. Teresa Tyler was the real estate agent procuring the contract with Pollak. No evidence was submitted that she was Respondent's real estate salesperson. While Pollak testified that Respondent mentioned he (Respondent) could work with more than one lender, the only lender mentioned by Respondent was Sovereign, and the loan was processed through Sovereign. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Office of Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 James W. McKibbon 5770 Dartmouth Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioners are entitled to recover against the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund and, if so, the priority of payment to be applied to their claim. A secondary issue is whether claimants who gave notice prior to Petitioners are entitled to payment or whether they have waived or abandoned their claims.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations filed by the parties and the documentary evidence, I make the following findings of fact: The Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (the "fund") was created in 1977 to provide recovery for any person who meets all of the conditions prescribed in Section 494.043, Florida Statutes. The Department is charged to disburse the fund according to Section 494.044, Florida Statutes. Section 494.043, Florida Statutes, (Supp.1986) provides: Any person who was a party to a mortgage financing transaction shall be eligible to seek recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund if: The person has recorded a final judgment issued by a Florida court of competent jurisdiction in any action wherein the cause of action was based on s. 494.042(2); The person has caused to be issued a writ of execution upon such judgment and the officer executing the same has made a return showing that no personal or real property of the judgment debtor liable to be levied upon in satisfaction of the judgment can be found or that the amount realized on the sale of the judgment debtor's property pursuant to such execution was insufficient to satisfy the judgment; The person has made all reasonable searches and inquiries to ascertain whether the judgment debtor possesses real or personal property of other assets subject to being sold or applied in satisfaction of the judgment, and by his search he has discovered no property or assets or he has discovered property and assets and has taken all necessary action and proceedings for the application thereof to the judgment, but the amount thereby realized was insufficient to satisfy the judgment; The person has applied any amounts recovered from the judgment debtor, or from any other source, to the damages awarded by the court. The person, at the time the action was instituted, gave notice and provided a copy of the complaint to the division by certified mail; however, the requirement of a timely giving of notice may be waived by the department upon a showing of good cause; and The act for which recovery is sought occurred on or after September 1, 1977. Recovery of the increased benefits allowable pursuant to the amendments to s. 494.044 which are effective October 1, 1985, shall be based on a cause of action which arose on or after that date. The requirements of paragraphs (1)(a),(b),(c),(d), and (e) are not applicable if the licensee or registrant upon which the claim is sought has filed for bankruptcy or has been adjudicated bankruptcy; however, in such event the claimant shall file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings and shall notify the department by certified mail of the claim by enclosing a copy of the proof of claim and all supporting documents. Pertinent to this case, Section 494.044, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1986) Provides: Any Person who meets all of the conditions Prescribed in s 494.043 may apply to the department for payment to be made to such person from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund in the amount equal to the unsatisfied portion of that person's judgment or judgments or $20,000, whichever is less, but only to the extent and amount reflected in the judgment as being actual or compensatory damages. As to claims against any one licensee or registrant, payments shall be made to all persons meeting the requirements of s. 494.043 upon the expiration of 2 years from the date the first complete and valid notice is received by the department. Persons who give notice after 2 years from the date the first complete and valid notice is received and who otherwise comply with the conditions precedent to recovery may recovery from any remaining portion of the $100,000 aggregate, in an amount equal to the unsatisfied portion of that person's judgment or $20,000, whichever is less, but only to the extent and amount reflected in the judgment as being actual or compensatory damages, with claims being paid in the order notice is received until the $100,000 aggregate has been fully disbursed. * * * (3) Payments for claims shall be limited in the aggregate to $100,000, regardless of the number of claimants involved, against any one mortgage broker or registrant. If the total claims exceed the aggregate limit of $100,000, the department shall prorate the payment based on the ratio that the person's claim bears to the total claims filed. The first notice received by the Department alleging a claim against Barry Koltun or Oakland Mortgage Company was filed on August 13, 1984. This notice was filed on behalf of John and Mary Ahern. The Department utilized this notice in computing the two-year period addressed in Section 494.044(1), Florida Statutes. For purposes of recovery from the fund, the individual mortgage broker (Koltun) and the company qualified by the broker (Oakland) are treated as one. Petitioners filed an initial notice of their claim against the fund on October 16, 1985. This claim was asserted against Oakland Mortgage Company, Barry Koltun and Robert Tamarro. On January 23, 1987, the Department issued a "Notice of Intent to Grant or Deny Payment from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund Re Oakland Mortgage Company." This notice outlined the status of some thirteen claims which had given notice of their civil actions against the licensee within the two year period. Two claimants, Kusich and Szafran, had provided all documentation required by Section 494.043, Florida Statutes; consequently, they were approved for payment. The Petitioner's claim was denied because they had allegedly failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes and had failed to do so prior to August 12, 1986 (the end of the two year period). The Petitioners timely filed a petition for formal Chapter 120 proceedings challenging the Department's denial of their claim for payment. Subsequent to January 23, 1987, Petitioners completed the conditions precedent for recovery and submitted all documentation required to satisfy the requirements of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes. On July 6, 1987, the Department received notice and a claim from the Intervenors. This claim satisfied the requirements of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes. Of the thirteen original claims filed, only two claimants (Kusich and Szafran) completed all conditions of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes, on or before August 12, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter a Final Order finding the claims of Rusich and Szafran eligible for payment, and that the claim of Petitioners be evaluated as part of the second class established in Section 494.044(1), Florida Statutes, DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 1st day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Zeigler, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. Suite 1010, Monroe Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul C. Stadler, Jr., Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Division of Finance Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Joseph Degance, Esquire 1995 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jack F. Weins, Esquire Boca Bank Building Suite 200 855 South Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Morey Udine, Esquire 3111 University Drive Suite 425 Coral Springs, Florida 32065-6930 Hon. Gerald Lewis Department of Banking and Finance Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt is the President of Respondent Action Mortgage Corporation and is the person designated to act on behalf of said corporation under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Action Mortgage Corporation currently holds a mortgage brokerage license. The individual mortgage broker license issued to respondent Clampitt expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. Respondent Joseph W. Langford currently holds a license as a mortgage solicitor for and on behalf of Home Mortgage Investment Corporation. His prior individual mortgage broker license expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. COUNT I The respondents were counter codefendants in a civil suit filed in the Circuit Court of Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of the Florida in and for Pinellas County, which case was numbered 78-12033-18 and styled Action Mortgage Corporation, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Denture Services, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants. On February 8, 1980, a Final Judgment was entered in that proceeding by Circuit Court Judge David Seth Walker. Judge Walker found, as a matter of fact, that a limited confidential/fiduciary relationship existed between Langford and the counter-plaintiffs, and opined that certain activities on the part of the individual counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The Court, inter alis, awarded the counter-plaintiffs Final Judgment in the nominal sum of $1.00, plus costs. It was noted that the claim of the counter-plaintiffs for punitive damages had previously been denied. Subsequent to the Final Judgment enteed in Case No. 78-12033-18, the counter-plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing on the matter of punitive damages, since the Court had noted in its Final Judgment that the activities of the counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The counter- defendants (respondents herein) also moved the Court to alter or amend its Final Judgment so as to remove the fraud language quoted above. By Order filed on March 10, 1980, both motions were denied by Judge Walker. Judge Walker's deposition was taken on August 22, 1980, and was received into evidence in this proceeding as petitioner's Exhibit 9. Referring to the language in the Final Judgment "bedecked with the badge of fraud," Judge Walker makes the following comments: "I do not interpret that as a finding of fraud absolute, but just that there were indicia of fraud." (p.4) "But I did not consider this to be an absolute finding of fraud. I think I mentioned that on one of the motions that the counter-plaintiffs made to reconsider the judgment of $1.00 or the refusal to grant punitive damages. I reiterated at that hearing that I found that it was an indicia, but I did not go so far in my own mind as to specifically find fraud." (p. 4) "If I had wanted to find specifically that they were in fact guilty of fraud, I would have said as much. The phrase, in my mind, 'bedecked with a badge of fraud,' is meant to suggest the indicia of fraud. Fraud is a legal conclusion that must be based upon several legally accepted circumstances. And in law school we learned the term, 'badges of fraud.' But a badge of fraud does not per se constitute fraud. I didn't feel that I needed to go too deeply in the questions, because of my finding that the counter-plaintiffs had not in fact suffered any real damage." (pp. 7 and 8) "I listed a certain series of circmustances and activities which had taken place, rather specifically. And I found that these activities and circumstances were bedecked by the badge of fraud which is admittedly a little bit flowery for normal language, but that's what I said. I did not specifically find fraud. Fraud always carries with it the badges of fraud in and of it- self does not collaterally, and on the other hand mean that fraud exists. I did not go that far in this particular judgment. I did not feel I had to." (pp. 18 and 19) "I did not feel that it was necessary for the Court to delve into the ultimate determination of fraud." (p. 20) "I do not perceive that my final judgment made an absolute finding of fraud. Again, the phrase, 'badge of fraud,' simply menas to me an indicia of fraud, and I'm confortable with the finding that that indicia is there. But as far as a finding of fraud is concerned, I did not proceed to that point, and it's not there." (pp. 20 and 21) COUNT II In 1978, Dorothy L. Jones and Byron A. Jones were the owners of real property located at 2656 Granada Circle East in St. Petersburg, Florida. The first mortgage on that property held by Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc. or the Mortgage Corporation of the South, was in default and a foreclosure action, and is pendens against the property had been filed. The monthly mortgage payments were approximately $225. At that time, Dorothy Jones was separated from her husband, lived in the home with her five minor children and was having financial difficulties. Having seen a newspaper advertisement, Dorothy Jones contacted the Respondents in an effort to obtain a second mortgage or additional funds with which to pay her debts and preserve her homestead. Neither of the Respondents agreed to make a second mortgage loan to Mrs. Jones. Instead, they agreed to make an outright purchase of the Jones's residence and lease the property back to Dorothy Jones at a monthly payment which approximated her prior monthly mortgage payment. The lease payments were later increased to $275 per month due to the loss of homestead exemption on the property. It was Mrs. Jones' understanding that she would be given the opportunity to repurchase the home at less than fair market value though she may have to pay a down payment and higher monthly payments. No appraisal was performed on the property. The closing of the transaction took place at a title company, independent of the Respondents. Mrs. Jones understood that she was signing a deed to the property and other documents transferring title to Respondents. The property was purchased by the Respondents in February of 1978 for $23,656.54 and the transfer was made subject to the mortgage to Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc., in the amount of $21,848.44. No funds were paid to Mr. or Mrs. Jones at the time of closing. During the months which followed, Dorothy Jones fell far behind in her lease payments to the Respondents. In May of 1979, Respondent Langford notified Mrs. Jones that the property owners had elected to sell the property in the near future, and advised her to contact his office if she was still interested in purchasing the property. In July of 1979, Dorothy Jones filed a Complaint against the Respondents in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County seeking a declaratory decree as to her rights under the aforementioned deed, lease and oral agreement to repurchase the property. (Civil No. 79-7307-17). Mrs. Jones was represented by an attorney in that action. By Order filed on July 29, 1980, the Circuit Court approved the terms and conditions of a Stipulation entered into by the Respondents and Mrs. Jones whereby Mrs. Jones was given the opportunity to purchase the subject property from the Respondents for $32,000 within 90 days, and was also required to pay back rental payments to the Respondents. For some reason not clear from the evidence adduced in the proceeding, Mrs. Jones did not repurchase the property from the Respondents. By Final Judgment filed on October 15, 1980, Mrs. Jones' claim against the Respondents was dismissed with prejudice and Respondents were awarded a judgment against Mrs. Jones in the amount of $2,887.50. Apparently, an eviction action in the County Court for Pinellas County resulted in the award of possession of the home to the Respondents. Mrs. Jones vacated the subject property in October of 1980. In April of 1981, Respondents sold the subject property to Harold and Peralita Odlam for a purchase price of $41,7000. COUNT III Respondent Clampitt was licensed as an individual mortgage broker for the years 1978 and 1979. His 1979 license expired on August 31, 1979, as did the license of Action Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Clampitt made an attempt to renew his individual mortgage broker license on October 16, 1979. The renewal license for Action Mortgage Corporation also bears the date of October 16, 1979. During the period of time between August 31, 1979 (the date upon which his individual mortgage broker license expired) and October 16, 1979 (the date upon which said renewal license was issued), respondent, Clampitt, as an individual mortgage broker, received at least three mortgage brokerage fees or commissions. A broker is considered to be licensed by the petitioner when a completed application form accompanied by the correct fee is received by the petitioner. It is the petitioner's practice to mail out renewal application to its approximately 6,500 licensees on July 15 of each year with the request that they be returned by August 15. All licenses expire on August 31 and are reissued for the following year to be effective from September 1 to August 31. Those applications which are received by the petitioner after August 31 bear a different license date. The correct amount to be remitted for the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license was $125-- a $75 license fee and a $50 guaranty fund fee. The $190 check received by the petitioner from the respondent on or before August 31, 1979, was accompanied by three renewal application cards. The petitioner did not apply $125 of the $190 to the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license because petitioner could not ascertain how the respondent desired to have the funds applied. Although a small minority of licensees do not renew their licenses in a timely fashion, it is not the practice of the petitioner to directly notify a licensee that his license has expired. Respondent Clampitt did hold a license with an effective date of September 13, 1979, as an additional broker for Fickling and Walker, Inc. in Winter Park, Florida. Under this license, respondent Clampitt would have no authority to act individually or on behalf of anyone other than Fickling and Walker, Inc. COUNT IV Respondent Clampitt arranged for a loan to a Mr. and Mrs. Fink. When examining the respondent's books, petitioner's financial examiner was unable to account for an apparent overcharge of $13.80 for credit life insurance on the loan. The examiner did not examine the loan closing documents with regard to this transaction. The evidence establishes that there had been a clerical error in the respondent's office concerning this transaction, that the cost of the credit life insurance had been miscalculated and that respondent Clampitt was entitled to the $13.80. COUNT V It is the practice of the respondent Clampitt to interview his clients over the telephone, look at the involved property and then, if he agrees to make a loan, send the client to a title insurance company to sign the necessary papers. These papers include a loan closing statement, the required RESPA statement and a recision notice which allows the customer to cancel the transaction within 72 hours without cost or obligation. Thereafter, generally five to seven days later, the customer returns to the title company to receive the loan proceeds. Respondent Clampitt does not take deposits and most often does not even meet this clients on a face-to-face basis. All borrower disclosures and rights required by law are provided respondent's clients by the title insurance company.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on March 23, 1981, against Joseph W. Langford be DISMISSED; The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on February 3, 1981, against Action Mortgage Corporation be DISMISSED; Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Charges and Complaint filed against Ronald E. Clampitt on February 3, 1981, be DISMISSED; and Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt be found guilty of accepting fees at a time when his individual license had expired, but, because of the unintentional violation of the pertinent statutory provisions, no disciplinary action be imposed for this offense. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter W. Wood Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Dew and Jay Emory Wood Harris, Barrett and Dew Post Office Drawer 1441 600 Florida National Bank Building St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Melvin Haber applied for registration as a mortgage broker by filing an application for registration as a mortgage broker on December 20, 1976. On January 14, 1977, Petitioner issued to Respondent its Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for registration as a mortgage broker. The reasons for such denial were set forth in an accompanying document entitled "Administrative Charges and Complaint." Petitioner Division of Finance had determined that Respondent Melvin Haber did not meet the proper qualifications necessary to be licensed as a mortgage broker and that he had, through Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions provided by the Florida Statutes; and although he had stated otherwise on his application, Respondent in fact had been charged in a pending lawsuit with fraudulent and dishonest dealings; and had demonstrated a course of conduct which was negligent and or incompetent in the performance of acts for which he was required to hold a license. By letter dated January 19, 1977, to Mr. Joseph Ehrlich of the Comptroller's Office, Tallahassee, Florida, Petitioner received a request from the Respondent Melvin J. Haber in which he acknowledged receipt of his rejection for mortgage broker's license and stated, "I received notice today of my rejection for my mortgage broker's license. I would, therefore, withdraw my application and re- quest return of $75.00 as I will not answer the rejection as I can't afford an attorney at this time." A Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint was entered on February 11, 1977. The grounds are as follows: "1. The Department of Banking and Finance does not have jurisdiction over this Respondent. There is no jurisdiction in any administrative proceeding over this Respondent. There is no pending application for any mortgage broker's license by this Respondent. The application originally filed for the mortgage broker's license was withdrawn on January 19, 1977. A copy of the letter withdrawing application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proceedings are moot and would serve no useful purpose. Permitting this tribunal to proceed on a non-existent request for broker's license would deny to the Respondent due process of law, equal protection of the law, and his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions applicable thereto." On March 4, 1977, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Eugene J. Cella, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, requesting a hearing in this cause be set at the earliest practical date, and enclosed in the letter requesting a hearing was a copy of the Division of Finance's Administrative Complaint and a copy of the Respondent's Special Appearance to Dismiss the Complaint. A hearing was set for April 22, 1977, by notice of hearing dated March 30, 1977. A letter was sent by Irwin J. Block, Esquire, informing the attorney for the Petitioner that the Respondent "intends to permit the matter to proceed solely upon the written Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint heretofore filed." Evidence was submitted to show that between May 29, 1973 and continuing through November 25, 1976, Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation and Melvin Haber as Secretary/Treasurer charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowed fees or commissions in violation of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's application for registration as a mortgage broker indicated that Petitioner was not named in a pending lawsuit that charged him with any fraudulent or dishonest dealings. However, on August 5, 1976, a suit was filed in Dade County, Florida, which charged the Petitioner and others with fraud in violation of the Florida Securities Law. The application was filed by Respondent, was processed by Petitioner and a Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for Registration was filed together with Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction upon request of a party for a hearing once an application has been received and the Division has investigated and fully considered the application and issued its Notice of Intent to Deny and filed a Complaint on the applicant. In this cause the question of whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of fees also must be resolved. An orderly procedure to finalize the resolution of the issues is desirable and necessary. The Proposed Order filed by the Petitioner has been examined and considered by the Hearing Officer in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Deny the application of applicant Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license. Refund the Seventy-Five Dollar ($75.00) fee Respondent paid upon filing the application. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Irwin J. Block, Esquire Fine, Jacobson, Block, Goldberg & Semet, P.A. 2401 Douglas Road Miami, Florida 33145
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a mortgage broker in Florida should be disciplined because the Respondent had acted as a mortgage brokerage business without being licensed to do so in that Respondent solicited mortgage loan applications in his own name and directed his clients to make their checks in payment of application, credit report, and appraisal fees payable to Respondent individually; accepted those fees without a written brokerage agreement and without adequate disclosures; failed to place the fees received into a segregated account; failed to refund fees; and converted the funds obtained to his own uses; all in violation of various sections of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Banking and Finance, is the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers and the regulation of mortgage brokerage activities in this State. Its responsibilities include the duty to sanction those licensed under the Act for violations of the Act. At all times relevant, Respondent was a licensed mortgage broker and possessed license #HA 264194420 issued by the Department on May 31, 1990. Except for two brief periods of time in 1991, Respondent's mortgage broker license was active from May 31, 1990 until September 1, 1993. Respondent's license became inactive on September 1, 1993 for failure to timely renew the license. Respondent's license is presently inactive and will remain in an inactive status unless renewed on or before August 31, 1995 when the license will expire. Respondent's license can be reactivated at any time before its expiration date by filing an application for reactivation and payment of reactivation and renewal fees to the Department. Respondent has never been licensed by the Department as a mortgage brokerage business. In January and February 1992, Respondent was not associated with any mortgage brokerage business, nor was he an employee or an independent contractor for any mortgage brokerage business. In January and February 1992, Respondent was not an employee of American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation, a licensed mortgage lender. American Fidelity never provided Respondent with any indicia of employment such as a written employment agreement, nor employee IRS withholding forms, nor an office, nor business cards. At Respondent's request and as an accommodation to a lender with which American Fidelity did a volume business, John Combs, President of American Fidelity agreed to act as a conduit for submitting Respondent's loans to the lender while Respondent established his own mortgage brokerage business and establish a history with the lender. As a mortgage lender involved in a lending transaction, American Fidelity was obligated under Chapter 494 to provide loan applicants with lender disclosure forms. Respondent claims that he had an oral understanding with John Combs, the President of American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation and that Respondent understood he was employed by that company to solicit mortgage loans. Respondent's claim is based on having received several copies of American Fidelity's standard loan application packages and having provided John Combs with a copy of his mortgage broker license. Respondent's claim is not credible. In January and February 1992, Respondent solicited and accepted mortgage loan applicants from ten to fourteen individuals for the purpose of refinancing their residential properties. Not all of the loan applications Respondent obtained were delivered to American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation. Of the ten to fourteen mortgage loan applications Respondent admits having solicited, four were delivered to American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation. Those four applications were identified as the Biron, Schauman, Tapscott and Phillips loan applications. Two of those mortgage loan applicants were Thomas Hall and Caroline Marks. The Hall and Marks loan applications were never delivered to American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation. The remaining loan applications are unaccounted for. Respondent claims to have delivered all the loan applications he solicited to American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation, and that Combs must have lost or destroyed the remaining applications. This claim is not credible. American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation as a lender keeps a log of those applications it receives and the date on which they are received in compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. The Hall and Marks loans are not listed among the loan applications received by American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation. Respondent did not provide his clients with a mortgage broker agreement. Respondent claims the reason he did not provide a mortgage broker agreement was due to American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation's policy of not providing a mortgage brokerage agreement until some time later in the transaction. This claim is not credible in that American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation is a licensed lender. Mortgage lenders, as distinguished from mortgage brokers, are not required under the provisions of Chapter 494 to provide borrowers with a mortgage brokerage agreement. Respondent did not provide any of clients with a good faith estimate of the costs for their mortgage financing transaction. Respondent solicited and accepted mortgage loan fees in his own name. Respondent claims to have collected these fees in his name based on American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation's instructions to him. This claim is not credible. Respondent directed both Hall and Marks to make their checks in payment of their loan application fees, credit report and appraisal fees in the amount of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) payable to himself personally. He indicated to them he would use these funds to pay for various costs and services when and as necessary. Mr. & Mrs. Phillips also paid loan application fees and deposits to Respondent in the approximate amount of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). Respondent obtained application fees and deposits from each of his clients but never provided a mortgage brokerage agreement nor good faith estimate. No portion of the three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) for fees and deposits obtained by Respondent from his clients was used for payment of credit report or appraisal costs. Respondent collected an additional fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) from each of his clients. Pursuant to Respondent's alleged agreement with American Fidelity, Combs required a fifty dollar ($50.00) deposit for credit report costs with each application. Respondent told his clients this was the lender's lock- in fee. Respondent directed some clients to make the check payable to American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation. Some of those checks were delivered with the loan applications to American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation. Others, such as the check from Hall, were not. Hall's check was never cashed. The Marks' check was made payable to Respondent. American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation was unable to process the four loans Respondent submitted due to Respondent's failure to provide for an appraisal. The Tapscott loan did close some months later after American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation made arrangements for an appraisal. Tapscott was obligated to pay the appraiser at the time the appraisal was done in accordance with American Fidelity Mortgage Corporation's standard procedure. In effect, Tapscott paid twice for an appraisal. No portion of the deposit monies accepted by Respondent from his clients were ever placed in a segregated account. The fees and deposits Respondent obtained from his clients were not continuously held in any account. Respondent admits that he did not refund the monies obtained from his clients despite their demands for the return of those deposits. Respondent converted the funds he obtained from his clients to his own use. On or about August 31, 1994, two and a half years after obtaining these deposits and after the initiation of the instant action by the Department, Respondent did refund substantially all of the funds he took from his clients. The only address in the licensing files was Respondent's home address, located at 1038 Green Road, Rockledge, Florida 32955. Respondent moved from the license address on file with the Department and failed to provide the Department with any notice of his change of address. Respondent refused to make his mortgage broker's records available to the Department for examination by making himself and consequently his records unavailable. Various liens had been filed against Respondent including federal liens. Respondent also filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code some time in late 1991. That petition for bankruptcy was dismissed on January 10, 1992 for failure to make payments to creditors under the payment plan. The order dismissing Respondent's petition for bankruptcy also lifted the automatic stay against creditors. The creditor matrix in this matter number thirty-four (34) creditors. Respondent at no time notified the Department of his bankruptcy filing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dean A. Danner's mortgage broker license be revoked. It is also RECOMMENDED that a fine be imposed against Dean A. Danner in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00). DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioners Proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-9, 10 (in part), 11-20, 21 (in part), 22, 23, 24 (in part), 25 (in part), 26 (in part), 28, 29. Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 10 (in part), 21 (in part) 24 (in part), 25 (in part), 26 (in part), 27. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean A. Danner 986 Kings Post Road Rockledge, Florida 32955 Josephine A. Schultz, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S225 Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Gerald E. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in April 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination? Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in May 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of mortgage brokers pursuant to Part II of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 494.0033(2)(b), Florida Statutes, individuals who apply for licensure as a mortgage broker are required to pass a licensure examination. To pass the examination, a candidate must receive a minimum score of 75. National Assessment Institute is the company employed by Respondent to administer the licensure examination. Petitioner applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. On April 25, 1995, Petitioner took the mortgage broker examination. Petitioner was advised that she had achieved a score of only 64. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the examination questions and her answers thereto, and she did so on May 12, 1995. She questioned her failure to receive credit for fourteen of her answers on that examination and provided written explanations why she believed her answers to those questions were correct. Petitioner's written challenges and explanations regarding her answers to those fourteen questions were reviewed by staff of National Assessment Institute. The individual who reviewed Petitioner's responses did not testify in this proceeding. This individual determined that Petitioner's answers to those fourteen questions were incorrect and that her explanations were without merit. Petitioner was advised that she was not entitled to additional credit for her answers on the April 1995 examination. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her April 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her responses to the challenged questions on the examination. Petitioner also sat for the licensure examination administered May 23, 1995. Petitioner received a score of 74 on this examination. On June 9, 1995, Petitioner reviewed the grading of answers to the May 1995 examination. Petitioner asserts that the reviewer gave her the wrong question book so that the answer key would make her answers appear incorrect. For her review on June 9, 1995, Petitioner was provided a correct copy of her examination book, a photo copy of her answer sheet, her original scratch paper, and two challenge sheets. The information provided Petitioner reflected the response to each question the Respondent considered to be the correct response. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her May 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her response to any question on the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that the April or May examination was improperly administered. She likewise failed to establish that the opportunity to review the scoring of these two examinations was compromised by fraud or mistake. The Respondent has promulgated Rule 3D-40.031(2), Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes it to request additional information in conjunction with a licensure application, which information may include the applicant providing evidence of a passing score on the mortgage broker examination. That Rule requires that additional information requested must be received by the Respondent within 90 days. The Respondent requested that Petitioner provide evidence that she had received a passing score on the examination. Petitioner has been unable to provide that information.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's challenges to the scoring of the April and May 1995 licensure examinations be dismissed and, consequently, that Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996 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 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5132 The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are rejected as they are not supported by the record. While Petitioner purports to explain her answers to certain questions on the April 1995 examination, this evidence was not presented at the formal hearing. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The fact that Petitioner challenged ten question as a result of her review on June 9, 1995, was not established. Since there was no dispute that the request for formal hearing was timely and this is a de novo proceeding, the proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 9,10, 11, 13, and 14 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Nasrin Y. Niknam 53 Castle Harbour Isle Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 302 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
