The Issue The issue in these cases is whether petitioners are entitled to payment from the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund, and if so, in what amounts. A further issue is in what order of priority the claims should be paid. Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings filed in this cause, the following findings of fact are deter- mined:
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 The Respondents have been charged with multiple violations of Chapter 494, (1987), the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to the act. The violations, described in an amended administrative complaint dated April 16, 1990, are as follows: Rule 3D-40.006(5), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to issue a statement signed by both parties, when receiving a deposit on a mortgage loan, regarding disposition of the deposit and other matters. Section 494.08(10), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(2), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to provide a written statement with a summary of limits and conditions for recovery from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.008(1), F.A.C.: Respondents assessed fees for credit reports, phone calls, appraisals and courier services, which fees were not supported by the files. Section 494.055(1)(0), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(4), F.A.C.: The department had to issue a subpoena for compensation records. Section 494.055(1)(g) and (p), and Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Borrowers were required to pay higher closing costs than were disclosed on the good faith estimate form. Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Respondents failed to secure executed modified mortgage loan applications from the borrowers or to return excess monies to the borrowers. Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(1), F.A.C.: Respondents accepted deposits from loan applicants but failed to obtain executed mortgage broker agreements which would disclose the cost of the loans. Sections 494.055(1)(b) and (g), and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c), and (4), F.S.: Respondents failed to disclose that they would retain both origination fees and discount points as their compensation, and failed to disclose compensation received from the lender in addition to brokerage fees assessed the borrowers on the closing statements. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S., Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c) and (4), F.S.: Respondents collected a servicing release fee from the borrowers when the Respondents were not the lender, and failed to disclose the collection. Section 494.055(1)(e), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(b)(a), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account.
Findings Of Fact Inlet Mortgage Company, Ltd. ("IMC") is a mortgage brokerage business operating under license #HB65002147500. Its place of business is 700 Virginia Avenue, Suite 105, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982. John Davis is the principal mortgage broker of Respondent IMC, operating under license #HA246700273. He has been licensed in Florida since approximately 1987, and opened his business in February 1988. As authorized by Section 494.065(1), F.S. (1987), the Department of Banking and Finance ("department") conducted an examination of the affairs of the Respondents for the time period February 1988 through June 1, 1988. The examination was completed on July 5, 1988, with a written report. At the time of the examination Respondents had closed only four loans and had another six in progress. The audit was conducted because a loan processor working for IMC had applied for her mortgage broker license, and her application seemed to imply that she was already practicing mortgage brokering. The audit cleared up this question and the processor was not found to be operating improperly. However, Timothy Wheaton, the department examiner, found other violations by IMC. When an audit or review is conducted by the department, the agency staff first interviews the person in charge to explain the review and to learn about the company. The staff then looks at the licenses, reviews files of closed and active loans, and examines books and accounts, payroll records, and the like. Generally, a sampling of loan files is selected from the broker's loan log, but in this first review all loans were reviewed, as so few existed. The staff writes a preliminary report and conducts an exit interview to let the broker know its findings. Later, a formal report is completed and provided to the broker, who has thirty days to respond. Timothy Wheaton conducted his review of IMC and John Davis at the company office in Ft. Pierce on June 3, 1988 and June 7, 1988. At some point on June 3rd, Wheaton was reviewing compensation records to determine how the broker, his partner and the loan processor were paid. Davis had checkbooks available, but the accountant had not prepared his books as the office had just opened. Wheaton had questions as to whether the checkbooks were all that was available; when he asked for the payroll records, Davis told him he would have to subpoena them. Wheaton returned on Monday with a subpoena and was given the same records as before. Davis admits that he made the demand for the subpoena. He was piqued because he was very busy when the audit staff arrived, and when he suggested they return later, he felt they wrongfully impugned his motives and accused him of hiding something. Respondent Davis has admitted to several "technical" violations or oversights in the loan files at the time of the first review. A summary of the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund was not being provided, but has been provided since the first audit. Deposits for credit report, appraisal fees and other costs were collected from the borrowers, but the files did not include a statement, signed by the borrowers, describing disposition of the funds in the event that the loan was not consummated, or the term of the agreement. After the first audit Davis has provided such a form statement and has included it in each file. On three closed loans, and one that was still pending, the files did not include documentation to support minimal (i.e., $25.00, $10.00, $6.56) fees for phone calls and courier fees, or fees were collected which exceeded the documentation in the file. Davis explained that these are charges made by the closing attorney, and the files now document those expenses. The difference between what was collected for a credit report and what was spent was returned to the borrower. (For example, $20.30 was returned to borrower, G. Stewart). In three loans closed at the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC received as compensation both the origination fee and a portion of the discount points. In the McCurdy loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($600.00), plus one half of the 1 percent discount fee ($300.00). In the Alexander loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($469.00), plus a .75 percent discount fee ($351.75). In the Stewart loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($612.00), plus 1/2 percent discount fee ($306.00). In each case, the Good Faith Estimate form provided to the borrowers disclosed the fees separately and did not break out which portion of the loan discount would be paid to the lender and which portion would be paid to IMC. The origination fee is sometimes called the broker's fee, although some banks also collect the fee when a mortgage broker is not involved. Discount points are a one-time payment to a lender to increase its yield on the loan. They are a percentage of the loan, paid up front, to reduce the interest rate over the term of the loan. These are distinctly different forms of charges to the borrower. Davis claims that he explained orally to each borrower how much compensation he would receive. The borrowers do not remember the specifics of that explanation, but rather consider the total origination fee and discount fee as their cost of the loan. They knew that the broker was going to be compensated for his services and understood that compensation would come from those fees in some unspecified manner. Davis claims that he checked with some lenders who told him that it was standard practice for part of the broker's compensation to be called a "discount" fee. He considered it a tax advantage to the borrower, as discount fees could be deductible, just as interest is deductible. During the audit, Davis discussed his compensation practice with the agency staff, who explained that, whatever it is called, the broker's compensation had to be fully disclosed to the borrower at the time of application on the Good Faith Estimate form. Between June 3rd and June 7th, Davis attempted to redisclose his compensation to the borrowers, but this resulted in unsigned disclosure forms in the file when the agency review staff returned on June 7th to complete the audit. At the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC maintained an escrow account for the deposits received from applicant/borrowers for audit reports, appraisal fees and other costs. Davis later closed his escrow account because he felt it was costing him money and because he did not consider the funds he received at the time of application to be escrow deposits. In most cases, the credit report and appraisal and other relevant services were ordered the same day as the loan application. Whether the loan was eventually consummated, the customer was still responsible for paying the charge if the services were provided. This is disclosed in a statement at the bottom of the Good Faith Estimate form and in a separate "Notice to Borrower", signed by the applicant which, since the first audit, is maintained in the loan file. According to the Notice to Borrower, if the loan is cancelled or denied, and the services have not been performed, the funds will be returned to the customer, less any cancellation charge by the appraisal or credit firm. These funds are deposits. When the escrow account was closed, Davis deposited the money for appraisals and credit report in his operating account. After services were rendered and an invoice received, he would pay the bill. Barbara Janet (Jan) Hutchersien, conducted the department's second audit of IMC in January 1990. This review covered the period from July 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. John Davis provided the boxes of loans and bank records and loan log. The auditor used the logs to review a sample of loans from each lender with whom IMC works. The bank records were used to trace funds reflected in the loan files. Ms. Hutchersien found, and noted in her examination report, that no escrow account was maintained, although deposits were received in a sample of loan applications. In the Fishman loan, which closed on 4/11/89, closing costs were disclosed by IMC as $1,822.00 on the Good Faith Estimate form dated 1/12/89, yet those costs actually amounted to $2,075.00, disclosed at closing on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Settlement form, for a difference of $253.00. In determining consistency between a good faith estimate and actual closing costs, the agency staff looks at items which are predeterminable costs. In the Fishman case, the estimate for survey was $225.00, but the actual cost was $400.00, due, according to John Davis, to an oddly-shaped lot. In two loans financed by Greentree Mortgage Corporation, IMC received a substantial fee from the lender, which fee was not disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, on the HUD Settlement form, or anywhere in writing to the borrower. File documents call these fees "discount for pricing". In the Meslin loan, closed on 8/11/89, the fee from the lender to broker was $432.00; in the Krueger loan, closed on 7/21/89, the payment was $820.00. These paybacks are called "par plus pricing", a relatively new (within the last five years) form of loan pricing. Par plus pricing allows a borrower who does not wish to pay cash at closing, but who would qualify for a higher interest rate in terms of monthly payments, to avoid paying discount points fee at closing. Instead, the lender pays the points to the broker, and the borrower gets a higher interest rate. This is contrasted with the discount point system where the borrower pays cash points at closing in return for a lower interest rate. Par plus pricing can work to the advantage to all parties: The borrower avoids a large cash outlay at closing, the lender enjoys a higher interest rate over the term of the loan, and the broker receives his money from the lender. The borrower, however, should understand his options, including the option to pay cash at closing for a lower interest rate. Davis did not disclose the payback from the lender in writing because that is the way he says he was told to handle the loan by Greentree's representative. Davis told the borrowers that he was getting his money from the lender. He did not, however, explain that the borrower would be paying a higher interest rate in return, and Roger Krueger did not understand why his loan was at 10 1/4 percent, rather than 9 3/4 percent, which he thought was the going rate at the time of closing. IMC also received funds from the lender in the Barnes loan, closed on 12/30/88. Cobb Financial Partners was the original lender, yet they paid IMC a service release fee ordinarily paid by one lender to another for release of servicing a loan. Although the fee from Cobb to IMC was not disclosed in writing to the borrowers, the Barnes' were told that the fee for IMC's services would come from the lender, rather from them. They were told, and it is disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, and on the HUD Settlement Form, that Cobb Partners Financial was paid $900.00 (1.25 percent loan discount) by the borrowers. Of this, $810.00 was returned by Cobb to IMC. John Davis concedes that Cobb, not IMC, was the lender and was not "comfortable" with how Cobb told him to handle his fee. He has not done business with Cobb since this loan and was simply trying to avoid having to charge his fee to Barnes, who had just arrived in town to become the newspaper editor. The borrowers who were the subject of the files in which the agency found violations generally did business with Davis and IMC because they thought he would get the best deal for them. They were financially unsophisticated and trusted him to represent them. They understood that he was being paid for his services and felt that he should be paid. Except for Mr. Krueger, they were generally satisfied with their mortgage rates. The mortgage broker's fiduciary responsibility is to the borrower, rather than the lender, although he must deal fairly and honestly with the lender. The service that the broker provides to the borrower is his knowledge and his ability to shop for the best product. Par plus pricing and other mechanisms by which the broker receives his fee in whole or part from the lender are not considered by the department to be a violation of standards governing the practice of mortgage brokerage, so long as the customer is fully apprised of his options and is informed of the role of those payments in the product or service they are receiving. The Barnes' and Kruegers clearly were not so apprised, nor does the record establish that the Meslins were informed, although they did not testify. Categorizing brokerage fees or compensation as "discount points" is patently misleading, as discount points are used to buy down an interest rate. When the points are diverted instead to the broker, the consumer does not receive the loan for which he has paid. John Davis admits certain technical violations, but unequivocally denies that he wilfully misled his customers or committed fraud. Since the second audit, he has restored his escrow account. He now discloses his compensation as brokers fees rather than discount points, and has learned how to disclose in writing the par plus pricing loans. In considering certain violations as "technical", and in recommending a penalty in this case, the undersigned has considered Respondents' willingness to correct the errors addressed by the department and Respondents' inexperience at the time of the first audit. Although he was involved in banking, insurance, and accounting, John Davis had not practiced mortgage brokering before moving to Florida and starting his business. In his early practice, as evidenced by his own testimony, he was willing to rely on the advice of lenders, rather than to seek guidance from his licensing authority. He misconceived his role as being jointly responsible to the borrowers and lenders with whom he worked, rather than a primary fiduciary duty to the borrowers, his clients. Although the concealment of compensation as discount points was a willful misrepresentation, the record establishes a pattern of ignorance, albeit inexcusable, rather than fraud.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered, finding that Respondents violated Sections 494.055(1)(e), (o), and (q), F.S. (1987); Sections 494.08(5) and (10), F.S. (1987); and Section 494.093(4), F.S. (1987), and imposing a penalty of $1,000.00 fine, and one year probation, with the conditions that Respondent Davis successfully complete a specified amount and type of professional short course work and undergo periodic review and supervision by the agency. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 6. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Rejected as redundant. - 8. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence except as found in paragraph 6. The department was required to obtain a subpoena due to Respondents' feigned or real refusal to produce certain records. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. - 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. Rejected as immaterial. The telephone charges were incurred by the closing agent, not Respondents. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. and Rejected as unnecessary and - 48. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 49. - 52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 20. 59 - 74. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16-19. Rejected as unnecessary. The conclusion that the handling of "par plus pricing" was fraudulent is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 77. - 81. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 21. 82. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 83. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 12. 84. Adopted in paragraph 10. 85. - 89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90. Adopted in paragraph 22. 91. - 93. Rejected as unnecessary. 94. Adopted in part in paragraph 26. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 13. - 9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Liability for payment occurs when the service is rendered, as reflected in Respondent's "Notice to Borrower". Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. - 19. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 20. - 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary. - 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Included in conclusion of law number 9. Rejected as immaterial. - 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The terms implied that the loans would be at a discounted rate, but were not, because the "discount" (partial) went to the broker. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32801 John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee St. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Dept. of Banking & Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Rm. 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is the following clause on Form DBF-F-24, which form is incorporated by reference in Rule 3D-40.09(2), Florida Administrative Code: If the above commitment or a commitment in an amount and/or upon terms acceptable to the undersigned is obtained and said mortgage loan is not closed because (I) (We) have not fulfilled our part of this agreement, (I)(We) agree to pay $ the application deposit being a part, for obtaining said commitment. The Association contends that this type of charge is not authorized in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and is prohibited by other provisions of law. The validity of the above-cited clause is the sole issue here.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc. and Dovard J. Evers, its President, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has charged and accepted fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions on the transactions set forth in the administrative complaint, Exhibit "A," in violation of Sec. 494.08(4), F.S., and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of 494.05(1)(g), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Evers & Associates, Inc. through the parson of Dovard J. Evers, its President, was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, during the time period contemplated by the administrative complaint. Subsequent to the time of receiving the mortgage brokers-license, Dovard J. Evers, on behalf of Evers & Associates, Inc., entered into an agreement with several other parties to sell notes secured by mortgages on real estate. One of the agreements was with David Edstrom, of a corporation known as S.E.T., Inc., Mr. Edstrom being the President of said corporation, and the location of that corporation being in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A similar agreement was held with one Gary George of the Mortgage Consultants, Inc., Ocala, Florida. The agreement with Gary George involved a sale of mortgages for the benefit of the mortgagor, Washington Development Corporation. The third such agreement was with Phil Swan of Southeast Florida Corporation. The written conditions of the S.E.T., Inc. arrangement with Mr. Evers can be found in Respondent's Exhibits No. 2 through No. 5. Essentially, the arrangement was to have Mr. Evers, through Evers & Associates, act as a salesman for the benefit of S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. Their agreement envisioned that Mr. Evers would be afforded a percentage discount varying from 14 percent to 16 percent of the amount of a mortgage loan which was a note secured by real estate. In actual , the contact was made between S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swam Mr. Evers for purposes of placing notes that were for sale. The apparatus worked by having Mr. Evers contact mortgagees/investors who made a check payable to Evers & Associates for the full amount of the mortgage loan, whose price had been quoted by the intermediary; S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. This amount was held in escrow until such time as the note and mortgage which secured the note could be drawn. The executed note and mortgage went directly to the third party mortgagee/investor without ever having the name of Mr. Evers or Evers & Associates, Inc., affixed to such documents. After this note and mortgage had been executed in behalf of the third party investor, Mr. Evers deducted a fee in favor of Evers & Associates, Inc., according to the percentage agreement with S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan and sent the balance of the money to S.E.T., Inc.; Washington Development Corporation through the person of Gary George and to Phil Swan of the Southeast Florida Corporation. The arrangement with Washington Development Corporation changed at a later date because Gary George was no longer involved and payments subsequent to his involvement were sent directly to Washington Development Corporation. The facts show that in the transactions found in Petitioner's Exhibit "A," the complaint, charges were made in behalf of Evers & Associates in the person of Mr. Evers which exceed the statutory allowance for fees and commissions in the amount stated in the column entitled overcharges. These overcharges are according to the percentage agreement between Mr. Evers and S.E.I., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan, minus adjustments made in behalf of the third party investor/mortgagee, as indicated in the testimony. This finding of facts, excludes the mortgage by M. Berkell which was stipulated between the parties as not being a matter for further consideration in the hearing. There was no evidence offered of the charge, if any, between S.E.T., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan in their dealings with their developer/mortgagors. At present the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc., and Dovard J. Evers, its President, have failed to renew the license in the current license period and, as of the moment of the hearing, have expressed no further interest in such renewal.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of Evers & Associates, Inc., by Dovard J Evers, its President, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl M. Barker, Esquire 218 East Forsythp Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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 The issue presented for decision herein is which of several claimants to payments from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund are now entitled to payment and, if any, the amount of the payments due from the fund. A related issue concerns the priority of claims and/or whether certain claimants have waived or abandoned their claims.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, stipulations of the parties, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. One of the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, provides that the Department of Banking and Finance (Department) is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering the Fund, which includes the duty to approve or deny applications for payment from the fund as set forth in Section 494.042(2), Florida Statutes. 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 obliged to disburse from the fund pursuant to section 494.044, Florida Statutes. Section 494.042, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986) provides: (1)(a) Effective September 1, 1977, the Treasurer shall establish a Mortgage Brokerage. Guaranty Fund. A fee of $50 shall be added to the fee for both application and renewal of a mortgage brokerage business registration, and a fee of $10 shall be added to the fee for both application and renewal of mortgage broker licenses. This fee shall be in addition to the regular application or renewal fee and shall be transferred to or deposited in the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. From October 1, 1985, until the balance in the fund first reaches the sum of $1.5 million, the fees provided for in paragraph (a) shall apply only to an applicant who has not previously been issued a license or registration under this chapter. If the fund at any time exceeds $1.5 million, collection of special fees for this fund shall be discontinued, and such special fees shall not be reimposed unless the fund is reduced below $500,000 by disbursement made in accordance with s. 494.044. (2) The Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund shall be disbursed as provided in s. 494.044, upon approval by the division, to any party to a mortgage financing transaction who is adjudged by a Florida court of competent jurisdiction to have suffered monetary damages as a result of any violation of this chapter committed by a licensee or registrant. 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 persona 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 or 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), and (e) are not applicable if the licensee or registrant upon which the claim is sought has filed for bankruptcy or has been adjudicated bankrupt; 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. Section 494.044, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1986) provides: (1) 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 recover 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. Licensees Apt and Caldwell have filed for bankruptcy. Accordingly, claimants whose claims were unperfected as of September 1, 1986 are not required to satisfy the requirements of section 494.043(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). However, pursuant to subsection 494.043(2)(Supp. 1986), claimants must provide the Department a proof of claim by certified mail. All claimants proceeding against licensees Schleusener, Sprague, Wright and Backhoff are required to satisfy section 494.043(1) as there is no showing that they have filed for bankruptcy. At all times material hereto, Petitioners, Apt Mortgage Corporation, Lee Caldwell, Beverly Backhoff, Wilma Sprague and Harry Wright were licensed Mortgage Brokers under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having been issued licenses by the Department. On March 30, 1987, the Department received a letter dated March 27, 1987 from attorney John C. Rayson, Esquire on behalf of the Zinni Claim against Lee Caldwell with the attached proof of claim. Thereafter on March 31, 1987, the Department's counsel, in conversation with attorney Rayson's secretary, was advised that the proof of claim letter mailed to the Department respecting the Zinni's was sent by certified mail but that the returned receipt part had fallen from the letter. An examination of the envelope submitted reveals that the letter was, in fact, sent by certified mail and contained the proper proof of claim. Additionally, by certified letter dated March 31, 1987, the Department received on April 2, 1987, a second letter from John C. Rayson on behalf of the Zinni's, against Caldwell with the attached "proof of claim". On March 30, 1987, the Department received by certified mail from Stephen F. Kessler, Esquire, on behalf of the Campbell and Ferdinand Claims: Schlaugat Claim. On October 14, 1986, the Department received by certified mail an Amended Complaint against Apt in Case No. 86 15853CB, which was filed on August 29, 1986. On March 23, 1987, the Department received by certified mail a recorded Final Declaratory Judgment in Case No. 86-15853CB against Apt in the principal amount of $50,000 plus 18 percent interest from January 18, 1984. On March 16, 1987, the Department received an Amended Complaint against Backhoff in Case No. 86-15856CH. On March 16, 1987, the Department received an Amended Complaint against Schleusener, Caldwell, Wright and Sprague in Case No. 86-11072CY. Hebl Claim. On October 14, 1986, the Department received by certified mail an Amended Complaint against Apt in Case No. 86-15853 CB, which was filed on August 29, 1986. On March 23, 1987, the Department received, by certified mail, a recorded Final Judgment in Case No. 86-15853 CB against Apt in the principal amount of $10,000 plus interest at 18 percent from December 29, 1983. Holdheim Claim. By certified mail dated March 27, 1987, the Department received a letter on April 3, 1987 from Attorney Arthur N. Wolff, on behalf of Evelyn M. Holdheim with the attached documents: Proof of Claim by Evelyn M. Holdheim against Doretha Lee Caldwell, Balloon Mortgage Note dated April 11, 1983, Complaint in Foreclosure in the 17th Judicial Circuit, Case No. 84- 7037CV by Evelyn M. Holdheim against Ernest Schleusener and Doretha Lee Caldwell, Mortgage Deed dated April 11, 1983, Proof of Claim; acceptance or rejection of claim by Evelyn M. Holdheim against Doretha Lee Caldwell, Letter dated March 31, 1987, by attorney Arthur N. Wolff to Clerk of U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Proposed Order and Motion. On October 15, 1986, the Department received a recorded Final Judgment against Schleusener, Case No. 84-7037 CV, which has been assigned to the Department. On April 27, 1987, the Department received a Withdrawal of Motion regarding Caldwell in the Bankruptcy Court wherein it is represented that it would be a useless effort to proceed against Caldwell in Case No. 84-7037 CV. See Exhibit A. Fuhrman and LaCotche Certified mail notice that an action will be instituted against Apt received by the Department on May 4, 1984. Complaint against Apt, Case No. 84-15882, was received by the Department on October 3, 1985. Complaint filed July 12, 1984. On October 15, 1987, the Fuhrman and LaCotche claims were dismissed from circuit court for lack of prosecution. Campbell Claim. On March 30, 1987, the Department received by certified mail: Proof of Claim by L. D. Mervyn Campbell against Doretha Lee Caldwell. Partial Final Judgment in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit against Doretha Lee Caldwell entered on August 4, 1986, Proof of Claim by Cecil Ferdinand against Doretha Lee Caldwell, Partial Final Judgment in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit against Doretha Lee Caldwell was entered on August 4, 1986, Proof of Claim by L. D. Mervyn Campbell against Apt, Proof of claim by Cecil Ferdinand against Apt. A Proof of Claim regarding Caldwell in the federal bankruptcy court, Case No. 85-01060, and a Partial Final Judgment against Caldwell in Case No. 86- 11362 DF, and A Proof of Claim against Apt in the federal bankruptcy court, Case No. 84-01247. Ferdinand Claim. On March 30, 1987, the Department received by certified mail: A Proof of Claim regarding Caldwell in the federal bankruptcy court, Case No. 85-01060, and a partial Final Judgment against Caldwell in Case No. 84- 11149 Co, and 39 . A Proof of Claim against Apt in the federal bankruptcy court, Case No. 84-01247. Stuart, Kutik and Marques Claim No significant documentation has been filed with the Department. Paine Complaint against Schleusener, Caldwell, Wright, Backhoff and Sprague, Case No. 84-18235 CX, received by the Department on August 29, 1984. Complaint filed August 8, 1984. 1/ Notice by certified mail received by the Department on September 10, 1984. Schiavone et al. Claim Certified mail notice of an action against Apt, Schleusener, Sprague, and Wright received by Department on March 22, 1985. Certified mail notice with complaint against Schleusener, Caldwell, Wright, and Sprague, received by the Department on April 14, 1986. Case No. unknown. Zinni Certified mail notice against Apt, Schleusener, Caldwell, Wright received by the Department on April 8, 1985. Complaint filed on April 18, 1984. Final Summary Judgment, Case No. 84-8669 CG, entered on June 24, 1986, against Caldwell and Wright. Turner Certified mail notice with complaint against Apt, Caldwell, Wright, and Sprague, Case No. 85-28746 CM, received by the Department on January 8, 1986. Complaint filed November 21, 1985. Mitchell Claim No significant documentation has been filed with the Department. Anglada Claim On July 3, 1986, the Department received certified mail notice of an action against Sprague, Case No. 85-6531, which was filed on July 15, 1985. Complaint, Case No. 85-6531, against Sprague and Wright received by Department on August 4, 1986. Judgment against Wright and Sprague entered on July 7, 1986. Certified mail notice of a judgment against Wright received by Department on August 18, 1986. Writ of Executions against Sprague and Wright returned nulla bona on September 3, 1986. Interrogatories served on August 1986, have not been answered and Certificate of Non-Attendance at Depositions of Sprague and Wright dated September 2, 1986. Judgment recorded October 9, 1986. Proof of Claim against Debtor Apt, Case No. 84-01247, dated September 9, 1984, in the Bankruptcy Court received by the Department on August 18, 1986, by regular mail. Smith Proof of Claim against Debtor Apt, Case No. 84-01247, dated August 28, 1984, in Bankruptcy Court received by the Department on October 6, 1986, by certified mail. Certified mail notice of an action against Caldwell, Wright Sprague, and Apt received by the Department on November 5, 1986. Case No. Unknown. APT/SCHLEUSENER 2/ Date certified Mail Received Claimant(s) Case No., if Known, and Proof of Claim Claim Amount 1. 3/29/84 Schlaugat 86-15853CB against Apt $10,000* 2. 5/4/84 Fuhrman & LaCotche 84-15882 against Apt 10,000 3. 9/10/84 Paine 84-18235CX against Schleusener 10,000 4. 3/22/85 D&R Schiavone Suit against 10,000 Paul, Schleusener 10,000 Miller, 10,000 Barron, 10,000 Margerite 10,000 5. 4/8/85 Zinni 84-8669CG against Schleusener 10,000* 6. 1/8/86 Turner 85-28746CM against Apt 10,000 7 a. b. 8/1/86 8/1/86 Schlaugat Hebl 86-11072CY against Schleusener 86-11072CY against 10,000* 10,000* c. 8/1/86 Schlaugat Schleusener Apt Proof of Claim 10,000* d. 8/1/86 Hebl Apt Proof of Claim 10,000* 8. 10/6/86 Smith Apt Proof of Claim 10,000* 9. 10/14/86 Hebl 86-15853 CB against Apt 10,000* 10. 11/5/86 Smith Against Apt 10,000* 11 a. 3/30/87 Zinni Apt Proof of Claim 10,000* b. 3/30/87 Campbell Apt Proof of Claim 10,000 c. 3/30/87 Ferdinand Apt Proof of Claim 10,000 12. 4/2/87 Zinni Apt Proof of Claim 10,000* CALDWELL Case No., if Date Certified Mail Received Claimant(s) Known, and Proof of Claim Claim Amount 1. 5/22/84 Campbell 84-11362DF $10,000* 2. 5/24/84 Ferdinand 84-11149 10,000* 3. 9/10/84 Paine 84-18235CX 10,000 4. 4/8/85 Zinni 84-8669CG 10,000 5. 1/8/86 Turner 85-2876CM 10,000 6. 4/14/86 D&R Schiavone unknown 10,000 Paul, unknown 10,000 Miller, unknown 10,000 Barron, & unknown 10,000 Margerite unknown 10,000 7 a. 8/1/86 b. 8/1/86 Schlaugat Hebl 86-11072CY and Proof of 86-11072CY Claim 10,000 10,000 and Proof of Claim 8. 11/5/1986 Smith Case No. unknown 10,000 9 a. 3/30/87 Campbell Proof of Claim 10,000* b. 3/30/87 Ferdinand Proof of Claim 10,000* SPRAGUE Date Certified Mail Received Claimant(s) Case NO. Claim Amount 1. 9/10/84 Paine 84-18235CX $10,000 2. 3/22/85 D&R Schiavone, unknown 10,000 Paul, unknown 10,000 Miller, unknown 10,000 Barron, unknown 10,000 & Margerite unknown 10,000 3. 1/8/86 Turner 85-28746CM 10,000 4. 7/3/86 Anglada 85-6531 10,000 5 a. 8/1/86 Schlaugat 86-11072CY 10,000 b. 8/1/86 Hebl 86-11072CY 10,000 6. 11/5/86 Smith unknown 10,000 D. BACKHOFF Date Certified Mail Received Claimant(s) Case No. Claim Amount 1. 9/10/84 Paine 84-18235CX $10,000 2. 7/22/86 Schlauqat 86-15856CH 10,000 3 a. 9/8/86 Campbell 86-10964CK 10,000 b. 9/8/86 Ferdinand 86-10964CK 10,000 E. WRIGHT Date Certified Mail Received Claimant(s) Case No. Claim Amount 1. 9/10/87 Paine 84-18235CX $10,000 2. 3/22/85 D&R Schiavone, unknown 10,000 Paul, unknown 10,000 Miller, unknown 10,000 Barron, & unknown 10,000 Margerite unknown 10,000 3. 4/8/85 Zinni 84-8669CG 10,000 4. 1/8/86 Turner 85-28746CM 10,000 5 a. 8/1/86 Schlaugat 86-11072CY 10,000 b. 8/1/86 Hebl 86-11072CY 10,000 6. 8/4/86 Anglada 86-6531 10,000 7. 11/5/86 Smith unknown 10,000 III STATUS OF CLAIMS NOT PERFECTED WITHIN TWO-YEAR PERIOD APT/SCHLEUSENER Claimant(s) Provisions Satisfied Provisions Not satisfied 1. Schlaugat s. 494.042(2), 494.043(1)(f) 494.043(2) (Supp. 1986) & s. 494.044(2) 2. Furhman & LaCotche 494.043(1)(f) 494.042(2), (Supp. 1986) 494.043(2), & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 3. Paine 494.043(1)(e) & (f)(Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 4. D&R Schiavone, Paul, Miller, 494.043(1)(e) & 494.043(1)(a)-(d) Barron, & Margerite (f)(Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 5. Zinni 494.043(1)(e) (Sup. 1986) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 6. Turner 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2), 494.043(2), & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 7 a. b. Schlaugat Hebl 494.043(1)(e) (Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(e) & & (f) (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) c. Schlaugat (Supp. 1986) See paragraph 1 & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) d. Hebl 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) & (2) 494.042(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 8. Smith 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) & (2) 494.042(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 9. Hebl 494.042(2) & 494.043(1)(f) & (2) 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) (Supp. 1986) 10. Smith 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) & (2) 494.042(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 11 a. b. c. Zinni Campbell Ferdinand 494.043 (1)(f) & (2) (Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(f) & (2) (Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(f) & (2) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) Zinni See paragraph 11a CALDWELL Claimant(s) Provisions Satisfied Provisions Not Satisfied 1. Campbell s. 494.042(2) & 494.043 (1)(f) & (2) - (Supp. 1986) s. 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 2. Ferdinand 494.042(2) & 494.043 (1)(f) & (2)(Supp. 1986) 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 3. Paine 494.043(1)(f)(Supp. 1986) 494.042(2), 494.043(2), & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 4. Zinni 494.042(2) & 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) 494.043(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 5. Turner 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2), 494.043(2), & 494.044(2) (Sup. 1986) 6. D&R Schiavone, 494.043(1)(f) Paul, Miller, (Supp. 1986) Barron, & Margerite 494.042(2), 494.043(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 7 a. b. Schlaugat Hebl 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(f) & & (2) (2) 494.042(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2) & c. Schlaugat (Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(f) & (2) 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2) & (Supp. 1986) 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) d. Hebl 494.043 (1)(f) (Supp. 1986) & (2) 494.042(2) & 494.044 (2) (Supp. 1986) 8. Smith 494.043(1)(f) (Supp. 1986) 494.042(2), 494.043(2) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) SPRAGUE Claimant(s) Provisions Satisfied Provisions Not Satisfied 1. Paine s. 494.043(1)(e) (Supp. 1986) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 2. D&R Schiavone, Paul, Miller, Barron, & Margerite 494.043(1)(e) (Supp. 1986) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 3. Turner 494.043(1)(e) (Supp. 1986) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 4. Anglada 494.043(1) (Supp. 1986) 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 5 a. Schlaugat 494.043(1)(e) (Supp. 1986) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) b. Hebl 494.043 (1)(e) & (f) (Supp. 1986) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 6. Smith 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) BACKHOFF Provisions Provisions Claimant(s) Satisfied Not Satisfied 1. Paine s. 494.043(1)(e) & (f) s. 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 2. Schlaugat 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 3 a. Campbell 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) b. Ferdinand 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) WRIGHT Provisions Provisions Claimant(s) Satisfied Not Satisfied 1. Paine s. 494.043(1)(e) & (f) s. 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) (Supp. 1986) 2. D&R Schiavone, 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) Paul, Miller, (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2) Barron, & (Supp. 1986) Margerite 3. Zinni 494.043(1)(a), (e) & 494.043(1)(b), (c) (f)(Supp. 1986) & (d) & 494.044 (2)(Supp. 1986) 4. Turner 494.0431)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2)(Supp. 1986) 5 a. Schlaugat 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2)(Supp. 1986) b. Hebl 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2)(Supp. 1986) 6. Anglada 494.043(1)(Supp. 494.044(2) 1986) (Supp. 1986) 7. Smith 494.043(1)(e) & (f) 494.043(1)(a)-(d) (Supp. 1986) & 494.044(2)(Supp. 1986) *Although some claimants have filed more than one notice by certified mail, pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 494.044(1), each claimant is only entitled to $10,000 per licensee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Office of Comptroller, enter a Final Order determining that claimants Holdheim, Schlaugat, Hebl, Campbell, Ferdinand, Anglada perfected their claims against the licensees as noted herein. Such claimants are entitled to recover from the fund the statutory limit in effect at the time of $10,000 per licensee since the cause of action for each claimant commenced before October 1, 1985. As to all remaining claimants whose claims were not perfected within the two (2) year period but have since completed all prerequisites for recovery from the fund, it is recommended that the Department evaluate such claims at this time and take appropriate action. 3/ DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 14th day of December, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. William Kirschner is Petitioner's owner and chairman of the board. Stacey Interlandi is its President and principal broker. Petitioner is in the mortgage lending and brokerage business. All of the mortgage loans it makes are sold to investors. Petitioner held an active mortgage brokerage business registration (No. HB 592567137 00) issued pursuant to former Section 494.039, Florida Statutes, which was effective from September 1, 1990, until its expiration on August 31, 1992. 2/ It currently holds a mortgage brokerage business license (No. MBB 592567137 000) issued pursuant to Section 494.0031, Florida Statutes. The effective date of this license was September 1, 1992. The license expires on August 31, 1994. From October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, Petitioner acted as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans and/or a servicer of mortgage loans. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has made mortgage loans by advancing funds to mortgage loan applicants. With respect to each of these loans, however, the commitment to advance funds was made prior to October 1, 1991. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has sold or assigned mortgage loans to non-institutional investors, but for no monetary gain. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has serviced mortgage loans pursuant to agreements into which it entered prior to October 1, 1991. At no time has Petitioner been licensed as a mortgage lender pursuant to Chapter 494, Part III, Florida Statutes. On or about July 31, 1991, the Department sent the following written advisement concerning the revisions made by the 1991 Legislature to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to all registered mortgage brokerage businesses, including Petitioner: The 1991 Legislature revised Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1991. A copy of the new law is enclosed. Some of the changes which affect mortgage brokerage businesses are: A mortgage brokerage business may not make (fund) loans or service loans. Only mortgage lenders and correspondent mortgage lenders may make (fund) loans. Only mortgage lenders may service loans. A mortgage brokerage business may ONLY act as a mortgage broker. "Act as a mortgage broker" is defined as: "... for compensation or gain, or in the expectation of compensation or gain, either directly or indirectly, accepting or offering to accept an application for a mortgage loan, soliciting or offering to solicit a mortgage loan on behalf of a borrower, or negotiating or offering to negotiate the terms or conditions of a mortgage loan on behalf of a lender." There are no net worth requirements for mortgage brokerage businesses. A principal broker designation form must be completed and maintained in the principal place of business and a branch broker designation form must be completed and maintained at each branch. The required forms will be sent to your office prior to October 1, 1991. To act as a mortgage broker, a licensed individual must be an associate of a licensed brokerage business and is prohibited from being an associate of more than one mortgage brokerage business. "Associate" is defined as: ". . . a person employed by or acting as an independent contractor for a mortgage brokerage business . . ." Under the new law, no fee or notification to the Department is required when a mortgage broker becomes an associate of your business. However, the license of each mortgage broker must be prominently displayed in the business office where the associate acts as a mortgage broker. Note: The Department will discontinue processing change of status requests under the current law effective August 1, 1991. Mortgage brokerage businesses in good standing which hold an active registration are eligible to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause. The applicant must have: For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both; Documented a minimum net worth of $25,000 in audited financial statements; Applied for licensure pursuant to the saving clause before January 1, 1992 and paid an application fee of $100. Should you meet the above requirements and wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause or if you wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to Section 494.0061, please contact the Department for the appropriate application. These applications will be available in early September 1991. THESE CHANGES ARE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1991. PLEASE REVIEW THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE LAW CAREFULLY FOR OTHER CHANGES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR MORTGAGE BROKERAGE BUSINESS. As promised, application forms for licensure as a mortgage lender were available the first week of September, 1991. Petitioner requested such an application form on September 18, 1991. The requested form was mailed to Petitioner the following day. On December 31, 1991, Petitioner submitted a completed application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "saving clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. The application was accompanied by an application fee of $100.00 and an audited financial statement reflecting that Petitioner had a net worth in excess of $25,000.00. At the time of the submission of its application, Petitioner had an unblemished disciplinary record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of November, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4313 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of facts proposed by the Department: 1-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 8. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 9-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 16. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 17-21. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 22. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 24 6/-39. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 40. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.
The Issue Whether Mortgage Broker License No. 3534 should be suspended or revoked under Section 494.05, F.S. At the hearing, the Respondent filed an answer to the charges in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, incorporating therein affirmative defenses. Rule 28-5.25(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the party may file an Answer which may contain affirmative defenses within 20 days of service of the Petition. Respondent's basis for late filing was inadvertence and neglect of its counsel. The Answer contained a general denial of the allegations and set forth affirmative defenses asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Petitioner to pursue its claims for alleged actions which took place on or before October 19, 1974, which was prior to the issuance of the mortgage broker license to Respondent. Further defenses included the claim that the Administrative Charges and Complaint are vague and ambiguous, that Petitioner had taken written action against Respondent without a hearing and denied it due process of law prior to the filing of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, thereby constituting double jeopardy, that Petitioner has unilaterally and without hearing denied Respondent renewal of its license, therefore denying it due process of law and claiming that petitioner is estopped from proceeding on the ground that it violated Section 494.06(5), in not keeping confidential the examination and investigation of the Respondent by giving press releases designed to influence the outcome of the hearing. The Hearing Officer permitted the late filing of the Answer and Affirmative Defenses at the hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner who claimed lack of notice as to the affirmative defenses. Respondent made a motion at the hearing to quash or abate the charges on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction on the basis set forth in its aforesaid pleading and on the grounds that Section 494.05(1) permits the petitioner only to investigate actions of licensees and not to suspend or revoke such licenses. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer under the authority granted to deny, suspend or revoke licenses pursuant to Section 494.05, F.S. From statements of counsel at the hearing, it appears that Respondent's application for yearly renewal of its license was denied by Petitioner on September 3, 1975. However premature such a denial might have been, the question is not in issue in the instant proceeding. Nor is any purported violation by Petitioner of Section 494.06(5), concerning confidentiality of its investigations of Respondent. Both parties made opening statements and closing arguments. The Petitioner presented its case through two witnesses and submitted documentary evidence. The Respondent did not call, any witnesses. Petitioner also called Frank H. Roark, Jr. President of Respondent Corporation as a witness. Mr. Roark, after being sworn, declined to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination. The Hearing Officer thereupon excused the witness. Upon a showing by the Petitioner that the books and records of Respondent Corporation had been requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum and its request that Mr. Roark be required to identify the corporate books and records in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, over objection of Respondent's counsel, the Hearing Officer permitted Mr. Roark to testify for this limited purpose.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Banking and Finance of the State of Florida issued Mortgage Broker License Number 3534 to Respondent on October 10, 1974 (Petition and Answer). The transactions of the Respondent which are the subject of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, concern the purchase by investors/lenders of corporate promissory notes issued by a land development company which are secured by mortgages on its land. The purpose of selling the note is for the land development company to raise funds for the development of real property. The sales of the notes were made by Respondent to individual investors. Usually these transactions were handled through what was termed a "Master Broker" who was a middle man between the land developer and the Respondent mortgage broker which actually made the individual sales of the notes. Typical of the manner in which Respondent conducted these transactions was to enter into an agreement with an investor termed an "Application To Purchase a Mortgage" for a certain face amount at a specified interest rate with interest payable monthly and with concurrent delivery by the investor to Respondent of the stated sum under the conditions that the note would be executed, the mortgage recorded, and the note and recorded mortgage delivered to the investor-purchaser. In due course, a promissory note issued by the land development corporation (the borrower), was delivered to the investor, along with a mortgage deed to specified real property to secure the note. Some notes were payable on an interest only basis and some on a principal and interest basis. Some involved the issuance of title insurance policies and others did not. In some cases, Respondent remitted funds involved in the transaction to the "Master Broker" and in some cases directly to the land developer, less an amount retained by Respondent, ostensibly for its fees, commissions, and/or other charges. The funds were placed into escrow bank accounts when they were received from the investors by Respondent and then sometimes on the same day or in most cases several days or weeks later, the funds less the amount retained by Respondent, were forwarded on to the "Master Broker" or directly to the developer (testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3 & 4). Acting upon a request of the State Comptroller to have all mortgage companies examined, in the latter part of July, 1975, Mr. Lawrence W. Hunt, a Financial Examiner Supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Finance along with three assistants went to the Respondent's office to examine its records and determine from the examination whether or not violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act had been committed. Utilizing source documents from the company records, Mr. Hunt and his associates prepared a worksheet and listed thereon various items of information gleaned from these records (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). After preparation of the worksheet, overcharges as to the 402 transactions identified in the worksheet were computed by Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, Deputy Director of the Division of Finance, solely from the worksheet obtained by the examiners (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Such overcharges were computed with respect to maximum fees or commissions which a broker could charge in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3-3.08, Florida Administrative Code, in consideration of the amount of funds retained by Respondent, Mr. Hunt is not a state auditor and his examination of records did not go into the depth of an audit such a compilation of financial statements. His work consists basically of an examination which involves obtaining information from corporate records and placing it on worksheets so it can be analyzed. During Mr. Hunt's visit to Respondent's place of business, he received full cooperation of its officers and employees and found the records to be in good order. He also had no reason to question any of the entries in any of the records that he observed. Neither he nor Mr. Ehrlich had received complaints from any individual or organization about Respondent's operations prior to his visit. He did not at any time contact any of the lenders or borrowers involved in Respondent's transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2). On October 11, 1974, the Division of Finance issued a "Memorandum to all Mortgage Brokers" in which it was stated that it had been brought to the Division's attention that a number of mortgage brokers in transactions (such as those under consideration here), were remitting investors' funds to the land developer rather than placing the funds in an escrow account, and that such funds were being remitted in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note. The Memorandum warned that this practice could result in substantial losses to the broker in repaying investors should the land developer fail and was also in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act and could lead to the suspension or revocation of a license under Section 494.05, (1)(f), Florida Statutes. This section concerns placement of funds received in escrow accounts where they shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized (Respondent's Exhibit A). The Memorandum was sent to Respondent among others Mr. Hunt, during his examination of Respondent's records, found that Respondent ,had changed its escrow procedures approximately the date that the bulletin was issued and that there were no discrepancies after that date concerning escrow monies. By further correspondence in December, 1974, and May and June of 1975, Respondent's President posed various questions to Mr. Ehrlich to clarify certain aspects of escrow account requirements and received replies thereto (Respondent Composite B - Respondent's Exhibit C, D, F and G. (Note: There is no Exhibit E) In 402 separate transactions conducted by Respondent during the years 1973, 1974, and 1975, the mortgages which were purchased by the investors were delivered to the investor within varying periods from one day from the sale date until almost two months from the sale date. Forwarding of funds by the Respondent to the "Master Broker" or to the land development company was also accomplished in these transactions within varying periods of time from the sale date. These ranged from the same date as the sale to periods of a month or so thereafter, but usually on the date of delivery of the mortgage to the investor. The amounts forwarded by Respondent consisted of the face amount of the note and mortgage, less a certain amount which was retained by the Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). No effort was made by Petitioner's examiner to determine either the basis for the amount retained by Respondent or its composition. For example, he did not determine whether there were any "points" for service charges or discounts of any sort included in the retained sum. The examination was made solely on the basis of examining the business records of Respondent which did not reflect a breakdown of the retained amount. However, it could be deduced from various documents in individual investor files that certain amounts had been paid by someone unknown for title insurance premiums, recording fees and intangible taxes. The dates of mortgage delivery shown by Mr. Hunt in his worksheet were dates which he assumed were correct but he had not verified by any person the exact dates the mortgage was delivered to the investors. Neither could he ascertain from the records whether or not an investor had authorized Respondent to disburse funds at a particular time. The overcharges were determined in accordance with the formula set forth in Rule 3- 3.08, F.A.C., which is on a "gross proceeds" loan in which the borrower indicates that he wished to borrow a specified amount with all fees and charges to come out of the gross amount, thereby resulting in a reduced amount being provided to the borrower. The overcharges were computed without knowledge of whether the amount retained by the Respondent, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, included payment for state intangible tax, documentary stamps, and recording fees (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and 2). The overcharges set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 were unrebutted by Respondent and are deemed correct. In a transaction between Respondent and Cary G. Anderson, who applied for purchase of a mortgage on May 7, 1974, in the face amount of $3,500.00, the file relating to the transaction did not reflect the amount of any costs to be paid by Respondent in the matter, nor did it reveal a specific figure for brokerage fee or commission charged by Respondent. The file did reflect a bill for title insurance premium in the amount of $45.00 and recording fees in the amount off $22.25, $5.25 documentary stamps, and $7.00 for intangible tax. The amount of overcharge was $175.46. In another $2,500 transaction with Mr. Anderson, the amount remitted to the land developer was $2,075.00. The amount retained by Respondent was $425.00. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 establishes an overcharge from this transaction of $61.37. There was no copy of the mortgage in the file and therefore no information upon which to determine the payment of intangible taxes, documentary stamps and recording fees (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In a $5,000 transaction between Walter L. and Thelma T. Beach and Respondent with application for purchase mortgage dated July 30, 1974, a check was written on Respondent's escrow account to Kingsland Development in the amount of $4,100. The maximum allowable brokerage fee or commission under the law would have been $590.90. The amount retained by Respondent was $900.00. The mortgage indicated that documentary stamps in the amount of $7.50 and intangible tax of $10.00 were paid. Assuming that Respondent paid the intangible taxes, and documentary stamps, the excess fee charged according to calculation under Rule 3-3.08, was $281.60 (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4). In respect to the above three transactions Petitioner's examiner did not find closing statements in the file, nor did he go to the Florida title ledger or Attorney's ledger of Respondent's records. However, he had, at the outset of his investigation, asked Respondent to make available all records concerning the transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt).
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to honor a subpoena issued by Petitioner as is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, ASPEC, Inc., is a Florida Corporation engaged in the business of Mortgage Brokerage in Florida. Shanker S. Agarwal is President of ASPEC, Inc. Mr. Agarwal has been licensed by the Department as a Mortgage Broker since May 24, 1985 and currently holds License No. HB-0016435 which expired, by its terms, August 31, 1986. On February 14, 1986, the Department received a consumer complaint about ASPEC, Inc., and pursuant to its investigation of Respondent's brokerage activities, the Department sent a certified letter to ASPEC, Inc., on March 21, 1986, to the attention of President Agarwal requesting that an appointment be scheduled with its Area Financial Manager, Division of Finance, Paul Richman. The returned service of the referenced letter was postmarked April 14, 1986. President Agarwal, or an officer from Respondent failed to schedule an appointment with Paul Richman as requested. On May 22, 1986, the Department served Respondent a subpoena duces tecum on May 23, 1986, by its then Financial Examiner Analyst I, Kevin J.C. Gonzales. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp 9-10.) The subpoena issued to President Agarwal requested that the custodian of records, an officer, director, employee or member of ASPEC, Inc. appear before Paul Richman on May 30, 1986, at 9:00 a.m. at the Department's Miami Office and produce all books, papers and documents (of ASPEC, Inc.) from its inception to April 29, 1986, so that the Department could determine ASPEC's compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. President Agarwal, or a representative on behalf of ASPEC, Inc., failed to appear at the date and time specified on the subpoena, or thereafter, at the designated place to produce the requested documents. Respondent has challenged on constitutional and other procedural grounds, the Department's authority to conduct an investigation of Respondent as a licensee under the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Respondent's challenges were determined to be either beyond the authority of the Hearing Officer or lacked merit, and rulings to this effec were made during the course of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the Mortgage Brokers License No. HB-0016435 issued to Respondent for a period of (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles J. Gopman Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Shanker S. Agarwal, President ASPEC, INC 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Ronald P. Glantz, Esquire 320 Southeast 9th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
