The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
Findings Of Fact At no time pertinent to the issues herein was Rebecca Love Henderson licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance as a mortgage broker under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency responsible for licensing and supervising mortgage brokers and associated persons in this state. In early January, 1987, Ms. Henderson began working for MAC, a mortgage banking concern, at its office located at 4045 Tamiami Trail, Pt. Charlotte, Florida. In March, 1987, Carol May Wilson went to MAC's office to see about getting the adjustable rate mortgage then currently existing on her residence changed to a fixed rate mortgage, because her research indicated that MAC had the best mortgage rates available at the time. Ms. Wilson entered the office without an appointment and spoke to the receptionist who called Ms. Henderson to speak with her. On that visit, Ms. Henderson gave Ms. Wilson a pamphlet which contained the then existing mortgage rates and discussed with her the terms and rates, the amount of payment required both as a down payment and as monthly payments, and similar matters. After that discussion, Ms. Wilson left with the pamphlet without making application. After discussing what she had been told by Ms. Henderson with her husband, Ms. Wilson and her husband went back to MAC's office where they again spoke with Ms. Henderson. In this latter conversation, they again discussed the applicable rates and filled out an application for a mortgage. At that time they also paid a $300.00 fee to cover the cost of an appraisal on their property, and several other costs and fees. At this time, Ms. Henderson helped the Wilsons fill out the form and, in addition, prepared and delivered to them a "Good Faith Estimate", and discussed the appraisal costs, points, and the need for a termite inspection. On this second visit, Ms. Henderson gave the Wilsons a rate option form which they and she signed, which locked in the interest rate at 8 1/2 percent. She also gave them a receipt for the appraisal fee they had paid. Both forms reflect Ms. Henderson as a "loan officer." The Wilsons went to MAC on their own. They had not been solicited by Ms. Henderson or any other employee of the firm but came in on the basis of the firm's advertisements. While in the facility, they noticed a display board which indicated the current rates and points being charged and the rate and points reflected on that board were those charged by Ms. Henderson on behalf of MAC. She did not negotiate, or attempt to negotiate any change to either the rates or the points. During her conversation, Ms. Henderson explained the various types of loans available and the various options available but did not urge one over the other. At least one of the forms, the Good Faith Estimate form, was mailed to the Wilsons sometime after their visit and was sent with a cover letter from another employee of the firm. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Wilson asked to speak with anyone else during either of their visits to MAC. Consequently, they do not know whether they could have done so had they desired. The documentation they received from Ms. Henderson appeared complete and they were satisfied with the service on their mortgage. At some time in early 1987, Donald R. Mullin, accompanied by his wife, went to MAC to refinance his mortgage and on that visit, spoke with Ms. Henderson. Mr. Mullin had previously filled out a loan application form which he had received from Floyd Henderson, also of MAC. Mr. Mullin was referred to MAC by a friend at work. He was not solicited by Respondent. During this meeting, the Mullins presented the forms they had filled out and paid the various appraisal and other fees required. The receipt given them by Ms. Henderson for these fees reflects her as a loan officer. At this meeting, Ms. Henderson did not indicate whether the loan would be approved or not. The only point for negotiation during the Mullin interview was with regard to the appraisal fee. Mr. Mullin had just had an appraisal done for his newly acquired mortgage and did not feel it necessary to have another one. During their conversation, Ms. Henderson agreed to see if the prior appraisal could be used and if so, the fee would be refunded. In fact it was refunded. The loan did not close because Mr. Mullin was not considered to have sufficient income to support the payments. However, at no time during their discussions, did Ms. Henderson make any commitments on behalf of MAC, nor did she offer to change points or rates. Herbert Roshkind and his wife were referred to MAC by their real estate broker and dealt exclusively with Ms. Henderson in all their dealings with the company. She gave them all the specifics relating to their potential loan, including interest rates. She explained that the rates varied weekly and that they could either lock in or not, as they chose. She also discussed the relevant fees for appraisal, credit report, etc., which she made clear were not refundable, and discussed the difference between a fixed rate and a variable rate mortgage. She also advised them of the various terms a loan could be taken for Their loan was complicated to the extent that Mr. Roshkind was retired. His income came from real estate and other investments which could not easily be verified. As a result, Mr. Roshkind was contacted frequently by Ms. Henderson in the course of preparation of the loan documents, requesting additional information. On one occasion, she came to his home to get additional information and to get his signature on a document just prior to closing. Ms. Henderson did not help the Roshkinds fill out their application. She gave them a package which they took home and filled out themselves. In the package was a list of 19 items which would be required to support the application, and her repeated requests for information related to these items. Mr. Roshkind at no time asked to speak with anyone else. He feels, however, that had he desired to do so, he could have. The rates for mortgages were posted on a board in the office and at no time did Ms. Henderson offer to negotiate either rates or points. Further, from the time the Roshkinds first came in to pick up the application package until they returned it to the MAC office filled in, they received no solicitation or any contact at all from Ms. Henderson or MAC. When the loan was finally approved, in May, 1987, they received a commitment form that was signed by George Emery on behalf of MAC but which was delivered by Ms. Henderson. Kimberly Lynn Johnson worked for MAC from May, 1986 to August, 1986 and during that period became familiar with Ms. Henderson and her father, Floyd D. Henderson, one of the principals in the company. During the period she worked there, the office was run by C. F. Cline and Mr. Henderson. Ms. Johnson started work as a secretary-receptionist and progressed up through clerking duties until she was trained to act as a loan processor. At that point, though she was not licensed as a mortgage broker, she began accepting loan applications and dealing with prospective clients just as did Ms. Henderson. When she took loan applications, she would receive the form from the prospective borrower, get the information required, and turn it over to a processor who would send out requests for the verifications required, do or order the credit report, and order an appraisal. At no time during this period was she a licensed mortgage broker nor did she know she had to be such to legally do what she was doing. She found this out only when she began studying for the broker's test approximately a year later. During the period Ms. Johnson worked at MAC, Ms. Henderson was a loan officer and also worked for Monroe Title Company. It was during this period of time, Ms. Johnson observed Ms. Henderson doing much the same type of thing she was doing involving the interviewing of applicants, and discussing with them the application forms, rates, points, fees, and the like, as well. This same type of activity was also done by other loan officers who, as she understood it, were licensed, and who, in addition to their in-office work, also visited builders, realtors, and other possible sources of business for the firm. Ms. Johnson recalls quite clearly that Ms. Henderson was engaged in this outside activity as well. On numerous occasions as she left the office, Ms. Henderson would advise Ms. Johnson where she was going, or her name would appear on the list of builders to be seen by herself and other loan officers. When Ms. Johnson first started with the company, walk-in clients would be referred to a loan officer on a rotating basis. Ms. Henderson and other, licensed, loan officers were on that list for rotation. When she served as a loan officer, Ms. Johnson would stay with her client all the way from application through closing and on almost every occasion, once trained, she would complete the process without any help from a licensed loan officer. The same applied to Ms. Henderson. Ms. Johnson was told by Mr. Cline that it was all right for her to act as a loan officer without a license as a mortgage broker as long as she didn't take a bonus or commission or did not solicit outside the office. Ms. Johnson was paid an hourly wage only. She does not know how Ms. Henderson was paid nor was any evidence admitted to define that. However, considering the fact that Mr. Moulin and Mr. Stillweaa both complained because their income was reduced as a result of Ms. Henderson's grabbing clients and her sharing of Moulin's builder clients, it can be inferred she was, at least in part, paid by commission. Based on representations made by Mr. Cline, Ms. Johnson continued working without question until an inspector from the Department came in for an audit. At this point, she figured that something was wrong and subsequently found that only a loan officer in a commercial bank can take loan applications without being licensed as a mortgage broker. MAC was listed on it's business cards as a mortgage banker. Though Ms. Henderson indicated from time to time she was going out to visit with builders, Ms. Johnson never saw her in negotiations with either builders or realtors. At the time in issue, Ms. Henderson's mother was terminally ill and had to be taken to the hospital and doctor's office on a regular basis. Ms. Johnson agrees it is possible Ms. Henderson could have been performing that service when ostensibly out on a call, but specifically recalls her saying she was, from time to time, going to visit a builder or realtor. She cannot say with certainty what Ms. Henderson did; only what she said she was going to do. Considering the state of the evidence, it is clear that Ms. Henderson did visit builders, and notwithstanding her assertion she may have gone there merely to drop off advertising materials, the likelihood is, and it is so found, she went for the purpose of soliciting business. It also is clear that with the exception of Ms. Henderson and Ms. Johnson, the individuals who processed applications and met with clients were properly licensed as mortgage brokers and were identified as loan officers. Both Mr. Cline and Mr. Henderson were licensed mortgage brokers and supervised, on a routine basis, the files of the other loan officers including Ms. Henderson and Ms. Johnson. In addition, either Mr. Cline or Mr. Henderson was available for consultation if necessary at all times, as was Mr. Gerber, the underwriter. All loans written by the loan officers, licensed or otherwise, had to conform to the same standards. Subsequent to leaving MAC, Ms. Johnson applied for and was, after testing, issued a license as a mortgage broker in Florida by the Department. This occurred after she was identified as operating as an unlicensed broker similar to Ms. Henderson. She, however, was never cited with a Cease and Desist Order. Mr. Kenneth Moulin worked for MAC from December, 1985 through April, 1987 and, along with his family, owned a 20% interest in the stock of the company. He worked in the Pt. Charlotte office along with Ms. Henderson. His primary job as a licensed loan officer and mortgage broker, was to solicit builders and realtors to refer potential customers. Mr. Moulin was licensed as a mortgage broker in February, 1986. Prior to getting his license, he was not allowed to negotiate with clients or to solicit business from builders or realtors. Because he had been previously engaged in the construction business, the majority of his contacts were in the building industry and he had a list of builders he regularly visited. Shortly after Ms. Henderson came to work at MAC, Mr. Cline gave half of the builders on Mr. Moulin's list to her as her source list. This had a negative impact on Moulin's income since at about the same time, his salary was discontinued and his compensation was based solely on commission, doubled in rate at that time. 24 Once half of Moulin's builders list was given to Ms. Henderson, she began calling on them, and he was told by many friends in the building industry, that she was soliciting them for referrals. In March, 1987, Mr. Moulin and Mr. Stillwell, another loan officer, requested of Mr. Cline a different split of the walk-in traffic because Ms. Henderson, whose office was right near the entrance, was pulling in as many of the walk-ins as she could to the exclusion of the other loan officers. After this complaint, Cline arranged a rotating schedule for walk-ins so that each loan officer would get a proportionate share of opportunity. In Mr. Moulin's opinion, based on his observations of Ms. Henderson and her activities, she, though unlicensed, did much the same type of work he did under his license. She solicited business from builders and realtors outside the office and handled walk-in clients from application through closing. He was not allowed to do any of this prior to being licensed, and he stands by this assertion notwithstanding the fact that numerous forms introduced by Ms. Henderson reflect that prior to the date of his license, he was referred to as loan officer. He explains this as occurring when Cline put his name on forms prepared for other people's loans so that he could get credit for them. Considering the nature of the operation as it appears from the general line of testimony, it is found that this did happen. Mr. Moulin initiated the investigation which culminated in this hearing because he felt he was being unfairly treated when cases were taken from him and he did not receive the commissions to which he felt he was entitled. In his letter to the Department, he identified Ms. Henderson as an "unlicensed mortgage solicitor." This appears to be an accurate description. Marcus Combs, testifying for Ms. Henderson, was sent to MAC by a real estate salesman whose broker was reportedly a major owner of the company. As did the others, Mr. Combs observed the rates and points posted on a board in the office lobby and was referred to Ms. Henderson, who he did not previously know, by the receptionist. During their initial interview, Ms. Henderson discussed the items required for the application and gave him a forms package. At this time, Ms. Henderson was in training and there was a man present throughout the meeting as an observer. At no time during their relationship, did Ms. Henderson attempt to negotiate rates or points, nor did she attempt to sell a particular type of loan. At no time did she solicit Mr. Combs to apply for a mortgage and, because he was having difficulty qualifying for a loan, suggested he look elsewhere for the mortgage. She actually referred him to another lending institution from which he ultimately got his mortgage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department sustaining the Cease and Desist Order entered herein and the denial of Ms. Henderson's application for registration as an associated person with Triple Check Financial Services, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October. 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3203 and 89-3769 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the partiesto this case. For the Department: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 8. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Either hearsay evidence or not supported by the record. Accepted. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. - 30. Accepted. 31. - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. - 52. Accepted and incorporated herein. For Ms. Henderson: Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of legal authority. Not a Finding of Fact, (except as to dates of alleged infractions), but a Conclusion of Law. Not a Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the Department's legal basis for filing. Not a Finding of Fact. 5a. - 5e. Not Findings of Fact but comments on the sufficiency of the evidence. & 7. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the sufficiency of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the state of the Department's evidence. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein, except to the second sentence of 12 which is unsupported. First and second sentences accepted. Third sentence is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to the issue of signing of statements but rejected as to the allegation of inaccuracy. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Good, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Rebecca Love Henderson 5635 Bryner Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32244 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
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 In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
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:
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Fleming 1653 Bass Avenue Seville, Florida 32191 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Post Office Box 8050 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8050 Alex Hager, Acting Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Cline was licensed by the State of Florida as a mortgage broker and held license number HB 0017832 from January 13, 1986 through May 31, 1987. During this period of time, Respondent Cline was president and principal mortgage broker for MAC at the 4045 Tamiami Trail, Port Charlotte location. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. The Respondent Henderson was also licensed as a mortgage broker and held license number HA 0007460 from March 29, 19856 through June 19, 19889. Respondent Henderson conducted business through MAC as the corporation's vice president. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. In response to a consumer complaint, the Department initiated an examination of the books and records maintained at the Port Charlotte location of MAC on April 21, 1987. The conduct of the Respondents in their business dealings as mortgage brokers with MAC was investigated as part of the Department's review process. The examination and investigation involved the time period from March 1, 1986 to June 1, 1987. The written examination report prepared by the Department's financial examiner concludes that the Respondents, as officers and directors of MAC, financially compensated MAC employees who were not licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act for soliciting or negotiating mortgage loans. Six alleged mortgage solicitors were named in the report. The loan packages of seventeen mortgages, along with MAC's commission reports, were submitted as evidence to support the conclusion. A review of the documentation, along with a review of the commission checks and the testimony of Kimberly L. Johnson (nee Steed) revealed that the documents identified as "commission reports" were not indicators of commission funds received by the six employees named in the complaint. These employees were paid on a set salaried basis. They were hired by MAC to perform the ministerial acts of taking or typing applications for loans under the direction of a mortgage broker. The use of these employees' names in the commission reports incidentally shows which employee assisted in the completion of forms that resulted in commissions to the licensed brokers who completed the mortgage financing transactions. This interpretation of the "commission reports" is clearly supported by the first page of the reports, Petitioner's Exhibits 17 and Commission checks on the loans, were issued to the licensed mortgage brokers. The evidence demonstrates that Rebecca Henderson, who was one of the employees performing ministerial acts, on one occasion acted beyond her authority and "locked in" the interest rate for a mortgage applicant while she was completing the application. The Department did not present evidence to show that either Respondent Henderson or Respondent Cline had actual knowledge of the employee's actions. Neither licensee was the mortgage broker directing the employee at the time the incident occurred. During the course of the Department's examination, the conclusion was reached that MAC advertised in a newspaper that the corporation was a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." The Department alleges that MAC is not a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." At hearing, Kenneth Moulin, a former shareholder of MAC, testified that the goal of MAC was to become a bank. The corporation had money which was used to fund two mortgage loans with MAC as mortgagor. Petitioner's Exhibit 34, which was loan documentation on the residential loan application of William T. Martel and Lora A. Martel, names MAC as the lender. The documents also include FNMA forms used by FNMA lenders. The examination report concluded that MAC did not maintain records for a five-year period. The company started doing business in March 1986. Records were continuously maintained from MAC's inception. An advertisement placed in the newspaper, The Monday Sun, which was published on April 28, 1986, failed to include the phrase that MAC was a "licensed mortgage broker." The advertisement was placed by Respondent Henderson. In mitigation, it should be noted that Respondent Henderson had his mortgage brokerage license for less than one month and was new to the business as it is regulated by the Department. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that Respondent Cline was aware of the improper advertisement. Other documents provided which purported to be advertisements were not authenticated. They lacked mastheads or headings which could sufficiently identify the place, date or kind of publication. As part of the mortgage financing transactions involved in the sampling of mortgages conducted by the Department, MAC collected fees from applicants for the preparation of documents and reports. Specific fees were quoted to applicants and receipts were clearly marked to demonstrate that the fees were non-refundable to applicants. In its bookkeeping entries, MAC continuously failed to maintain ledger entries which showed that the fees had been assessed on each application, and that the monies had been used for the intended purposes for which they had been collected. In the sampling of mortgages reviewed by the Department, MAC retained money assessed for discount points. The money was not used to reduce the interest rate on mortgages closed, as represented to the borrowers by MAC. Instead, the mortgages were immediately assigned and the discount assessment was retained by MAC for its own, undisclosed use.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Henderson be issued a reprimand for failure to place the words "licensed mortgage broker" in the April 28, 1986 advertisement. That all other charges against the Respondents be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerkk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2202 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. See HO #2. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Document speaks for itself. Also, this is established as proper evidence under Section 494.051, Florida Statutes, so these findings are redundant. Rejected. Report speaks for itself. Accepted. Accepted. Reject the phrase "negotiation." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Reject the phrase "negotiate." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. 21.-24. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Kimberly L. Johnson is the same person as Kimberly L. Steed who has been licensed as a mortgage broker since September 29, 1986. 25.&26. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See above. This rendering of the testimony is rejected by the fact finder. Accepted. &29. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5 and HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #5. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Steed completed ministerial acts. See HO #5. Accept the first sentence. Reject the rest as contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. Repetitive. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Appli- cation fees were not set up as entrusted funds. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Repetitive. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Cline was not the mortgage broker on any of the transactions presented at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Respondent Cline's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. The records presented were found to be reliable when compared with the originals presented simultaneously by Respondent Henderson, although those were not officially placed in evidence. Rejected. See above. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Calls for legal conclusion. Rejected. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Irrelevant. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. However, the competency of the examiner was considered in the factual determinations made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Not listed as factual finding. As a Conclu- sion of Law, the Hearing Officer cannot rule on this matter. Respondent Henderson's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See preliminary matters. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Unable to rule on proposed finding. Insufficient. 7. Accepted. See HO #5. 8. Accepted. See HO #8. 9.&10. Reject. Insufficient. 11. Accepted. See HO #12. 12. Rejected. Insufficient. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. See HO #12. 15. Accepted. See HO #2. 16. Rejected. Conclusionary. 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. 19.-30. Not listed as factual findings. As Conclusions of Law, Hearing Officer cannot rule on these matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsie M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 33801 Ann Mitchell, Esquire GERALD DUNCAN ENGVALSON & MITCHELL Foxworthy Professional Building Suite 101 1601 Jackson Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Floyd G. Henderson Post Office Box 2875 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent as a Mortgage Solicitor should be suspended for violation of Sections 494.05 (1) (a) & (b), Florida Statutes, Rule 3-3.07(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 494.05(1)(g), Florida Statutes. At the commencement of the hearing, Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the proceedings by reason of Petitioner's failure to provide witness statements of Charles R. Burke & Kathryn C. Burke, pursuant to a letter from Respondent's counsel to the Deputy Director, Division of Finance, dated August 26, 1975, requesting copies of any witness statements obtained in the course of Petitioner'S investigation. Respondent not having previously sought to compel discovery in accordance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion was denied. At this point, Respondent's counsel announced that he had been instructed by his client, who was not present at the hearing, to leave the hearing room and take no further part in the proceedings if the motion was denied. This being the case, Respondent's counsel departed and the hearing was then conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a Mortgage Solicitor with the firm of Hartwell and Associates, Inc., from May 27, 1974 to July 24, 1974, when his license was returned to Petitioner for cancellation by that firm. On September 13, 1974, Respondent was issued a Mortgage Solicitor's License with ABC Investment Corporation. Records of the Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, Division of Finance, Department of Banking and Finance, failed to reveal any other license as a mortgage broker or mortgage solicitor having been issued to Respondent (Testimony of Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1). In the spring of 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Burke, Sr. of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, met the Respondent who proposed to double the income that the Burkes were then receiving from interest on securities investments. This was to be done through the purchase of promissory notes secured by first mortgages on property located in Volusia County, ostensibly owned by LTP Properties, Inc., a land developer. Respondent showed them photographic slides of a club house at the development site and stated that there would be a golf course there and painted a bright picture of the receipt of 12 percent interest on the notes if the Burkes would liquidate the stocks that they owned and invest through him. He stated that the amounts that they would invest would represent only 40 per cent of the value of the real estate that secured their investment, and that it was a "sure thing.' Acting upon Respondent's advice, Mr. and Mrs. Burke cashed in some $180,000.00 in stocks and turned it over to the Respondent in June, 1974. In return, they received $180,000.00 in promissory notes in face amounts of $5,000.00 and$8,000.00 issued by LTP Properties, Inc. The promissory notes indicated on their face that the sale was approved by SEI, Inc., sales agent for LTP Properties, Inc., and they were signed by the president of SEI, Inc. The interest payments were to commence July 1st. Such payments were received during the months of July through December, 1974. In the fall of 1974, the Burkes invested another $100,000.00 with the Respondent for similar instruments, and again in January, 1975, they purchased another $20,000.00 in promissory notes and mortgages in face amounts of $5,000.00 each which also were issued by LTP Properties, Inc., but then owned by Respondent. At this time, the January 1st interest payment on the prior investments had not been made and, prior to making the final investment, the Burkes inquired of Respondent as to the reason for nonpayment of interest. He stated to them that LTP Properties was experiencing financial difficulties at the time but that it was endeavoring to get money from a bank overseas and from the Mellon Bank in Pennsylvania. No further interest payments have been made on any of the notes since December, 1974, and the Burkes discovered later that they did not, in fact, hold first mortgages on the real estate described in their mortgage deeds and consequently could not foreclose thereon (Testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Burke, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). Prior to advising investors to purchase notes of LTP Properties, Inc., Respondent made several trips to the site of the property, checked with the local bank of the developer, was shown a financial statement which indicated that the developer was solvent, and compared values with surrounding real estate developments. He told the Burkes that LTP was obtaining foreign financing based on information he had received from Mr. David Edstrom of SEI, Inc., who in turn had acquired the information from Mr. Frank Carcaise of LTP Properties, Inc. This statement was made to the Burkes sometime between February and June of 1975 according to the Respondent. As far as Respondent knew, LTP Properties, Inc., stopped making interest payments on their notes about February, 1975 (Deposition of Respondent).
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Office is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokerage and mortgage lending and for licensing mortgage brokers. §§ 494.0011(1); 494.0033(2), Fla. Stat. License revocation and criminal prosecution The Office's predecessor, the Department of Banking and Finance ("Department"), issued a mortgage broker's license to Mrs. Comas in 1997. Mrs. Comas worked as a mortgage broker with Miami Mortgage Lenders until 1999, when she left her employment with that company after she was involved in what will be referred to as "the Sipple transaction." The Department initiated disciplinary action against Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license, and, because Mrs. Comas stipulated to the material facts of the Sipple transaction, an informal administrative hearing was held before a hearing officer appointed by the Department. The Department entered a final order revoking Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license on June 25, 2001, which was upheld on appear by the Third District Court of Appeal in Comas v. Department of Banking and Finance, 820 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The material facts of the Sipple transaction and the basis for the revocation of Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license were set out by the district court in Comas, which quoted the Final Order with approval, as follows: "Appellant's conduct in altering a customer check, depositing it in her personal account, and later writing a letter to the customer on company letterhead falsely stating that the funds were in the hands of the title company jeopardized not only the customer, but also her employer and the title company. This conduct violates the numerous statutory provisions referenced in the Final Order, casts considerable doubt on either Appellant's competence, integrity, or both, and clearly warrants license revocation." Criminal charges were filed against Mrs. Comas as a result of her actions in the Sipple transaction. The information filed against Mrs. Comas, and all counts thereof, was dismissed by order of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in April 2002. Denials of applications for licensure as a mortgage broker subsequent to revocation In October 2002, Mrs. Comas applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. The Office notified her that it intended to deny her application in a Notice of Denial dated March 17, 2003. Mrs. Comas requested an administrative hearing, and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 03-1738. A recommended order was entered on September 30, 2003, in which the administrative law judge found that Mrs. Comas failed to establish that she was rehabilitated and recommended that Mrs. Comas's application be denied. The Office entered a final order in which it adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order, and denied Mrs. Comas's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. Among the findings of fact made in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 and adopted in the Office's Final Order was a finding that Mrs. Comas had failed to make restitution to the owner of Miami Mortgage Lenders, who had paid Ms. Sipple the monies that Mrs. Comas had improperly deposited in her personal account. On March 10, 2006, Mrs. Comas again applied to the Office for licensure as a mortgage broker. In a Notice of Denial of Application dated November 9, 2006, the Office notified Mrs. Comas that it intended to deny her application. Mrs. Comas did not request an administrative hearing, and the Office entered a final order denying the application on December 18, 2006. The Office incorporated into the final order the factual bases set forth in the November 9, 2006, Notice of Denial of Application, which were virtually identical to the factual bases set forth in paragraphs a. through d. of the Notice of Denial at issue herein. RPM Lenders, Inc. and related companies In 1997, Mrs. Comas and her husband, Rolando Comas, founded RPM Lenders, Inc. ("RPM Lenders"). Mrs. Comas worked as a mortgage broker with RPM Lenders from the time she left her employment at Miami Mortgage Lenders in 1999 until her mortgage broker's license was revoked in 2001. Mrs. Comas continued working for RPM Lenders after her mortgage broker's license was revoked in 2001.2 RPM Lenders shared office space with RPM Systems, a computer company which set up computer networks and distributed computers, and it also shared office space with RPM Loans and Realty, which was created in 1999 or 2000 to handle real estate transactions. On or about December 29, 2003, Mr. Comas and Mrs. Comas, on behalf of RPM Lenders, signed a Stipulation and Consent that was incorporated into a final order entered by the Office on December 30, 2003. In the Stipulation and Consent, it was recited that Mrs. Comas was the sole owner and president of RPM Lenders until May 14, 2003. In paragraph 6.1.1 of the Stipulation and Consent, Mrs. Comas agreed that she would "not become a mortgage broker, principal broker, principal representative, owner, officer or director of R.P.M. Lenders, Inc." From 2004 through April 17, 2008, Mrs. Comas was the corporate secretary for RPM Lenders until it ceased business in 2007, when its name was changed to ROC Lenders, Inc. ROC Lenders, Inc., never did any business, but Mrs. Comas nonetheless continued to serve as that company's corporate secretary until her name was deleted as the corporate secretary pursuant to a filing with the Florida Secretary of State dated April 17, 2008.3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mrs. Comas managed RPM Lenders, RPM Loans and Realty, and RPM Systems. Her title with RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty was "Finance Manager," and her duties included the general daily management responsibilities of an office manager, such as ensuring that office equipment was repaired and maintained and ordering office supplies, as well as duties that included customer support, marketing and advertising, developing and implementing quality control procedures, preparing financial statements, handing accounts receivable and accounts payable, reconciling all bank accounts, reviewing all funded files, and attending all of the closings. Mrs. Comas was paid a management fee for her services as Financial Manager and Office Manager for RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty. In providing customer support for RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty, Mrs. Comas responded to customer complaints on behalf of the brokers employed by those companies, reviewing files and attempting to resolve problems and disagreements between customers and brokers. RPM Loans and Realty was created in 1999 or 2000 "for realty purposes," and Mrs. Comas began working with RPM Loans and Realty as a real estate associate beginning in March 1999. Mrs. Comas continued to work with RPM Loans and Realty both as manager and as a real estate associate up to the time of the final hearing.4 Rehabilitation As part of her practice as a real estate associate, Mrs. Comas accepts deposits from buyers and transmits them to title companies.5 Mrs. Comas's license as a real estate associate was current at the time of the final hearing, and it has never been the subject of disciplinary action. In a letter dated November 12, 2008, to Sherry Sipple, the person whose check Ms. Comas altered and deposited in her personal bank account, Mrs. Comas denied having altered the check, stating that her name was placed on the check by someone else. Mrs. Comas did not mention in the letter her depositing Ms. Sipple's check in her personal bank account, and Mrs. Comas blamed Ms. Sipple and Ms. Sipple's brother for what she called a "misunderstanding," stating that, because Ms. Sipple and Ms. Sipple's brother went to the closing on the subject property without Mrs. Comas, she was unable to deliver to the title company the money Ms. Sipple had entrusted to her. Mrs. Comas apologized to Ms. Sipple "for what happened," but then asked that she give Mrs. Comas's attorney a "statement of acceptance of this BIG MISUNDERSTANDING."6 Mrs. Comas telephoned Mark Mazis, her employer at Miami Mortgage Company, and apologized to him for "what happened."7 Mrs. Comas acknowledged in her testimony at the final hearing that she did something wrong, although she insisted that she did not intend to steal Ms. Sipple's money by placing it in her personal bank account but intended only to expedite Ms. Sipple's closing. Since her license was revoked in 2001, Mrs. Comas has contributed to charities and attends church approximately twice a month. Summary The Sipple transaction The evidence presented by the Office in the form of the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in Comas v. Department of Banking and Finance establishes conclusively that, in 1999, Mrs. Comas committed fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or incompetence in a mortgage financing transaction; that Mrs. Comas failed to deliver funds to her customer that Mrs. Comas was not entitled to retain; and that Mrs. Comas misappropriated the customer's check by depositing it in her personal account. Untruthful testimony in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 The evidence presented by the Office is not sufficient to support a finding of fact that Mrs. Comas gave untruthful testimony in a previous administrative proceeding. In the Notice of Denial dated August 6, 2008, the Office stated as one of the factual grounds for its denial of Mrs. Comas's application for a mortgage broker's license that Mrs. Comas had testified untruthfully at the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 03- 1738. This allegation was apparently based on several findings of fact in the Recommended Order which were referenced in the Office's Proposed Recommended Order in the instant case, as follows: At the July 23, 24[, 2003] formal hearing three issues were litigated — Mrs. Comas’s claims about the circumstances of the Sipple transaction, Mrs. Comas’s claim that she had paid restitution, and her claim that she had apologized to the victims, Sherry Sipple (now Sherry Mercugliano) and Marc Mazis. (Exhibit Q) On these three claims, Mrs. Comas’s testimony conflicted with that of the victims. (Id.) The Administratively [sic] Law Judge weighed the conflicting testimony and determined: 18. Through the time of the hearing, Comas falsely claimed the transaction failed because Sipple was dissatisfied with the interest rate Comas was able to obtain. This testimony is rejected in favor of Sipple's much more convincing explanation that she rejected the balloon payment Comas proposed, insisting upon the fixed rate which she had required from the beginning. * * * 20. For all of the trouble Comas caused Sipple and Mazis, she has never apologized to them. Although Comas testified to the contrary on that point, her self- serving testimony is not credible. * * * 22. Taking into account the entire record, and having had the opportunity to view the demeanor, credibility, ability to perceive facts, knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the events to which they testified, and motive to testify, of each of the witnesses in close and stressful quarters, the conclusion is inescapable that the victims' version of events is entirely consistent with the truth. To the extent that victims' recollections or characterizations of material events differ from those of Comas and her witnesses, the testimony of the victims is credited. (Emphasis added.) (Id.) Consequently, Petitioner made false claims and testified untruthfully at the July 23-24, 2003 formal hearing. The discussions in the quoted paragraphs are not findings of fact regarding the truth or falsity of Mrs. Comas's testimony. Rather, the Administrative Law Judge was assessing the quality and quantity of the evidence presented by the parties as a predicate to making findings of fact regarding the issue of whether Mrs. Comas had established rehabilitation. The Administrative Law Judge's assessment that Mrs. Comas's testimony was not as credible or as persuasive as the conflicting testimony of other witnesses was an assessment of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses made by the Administrative Law Judge in order to determine which conflicting testimony and evidence is the more persuasive. Although the Administrative Law Judge included in paragraph 18 of the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 a statement that Mrs. Comas made a "false" claim in her testimony, it is clear from a reading of the entire paragraph that the Administrative Law Judge found Ms. Sipple's version of the events more credible. Indeed, an Administrative Law Judge would be acting improperly if he or she were to make a finding of fact that a party's or witness's testimony was untruthful or false because the truth or falsity of evidence is not at issue in an administrative proceeding. Such a finding would amount to a finding that the party or witness had committed perjury, which cannot be litigated in an administrative forum but is, rather, subject to criminal prosecution. See Ch. 837, Fla. Stat. The Office's denials of Mrs. Comas's applications for licensure subsequent to the revocation of her license The evidence presented by the Office establishes that it denied Mrs. Comas's applications for licensure as a mortgage broker in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 denial was based on a Final Order in which the Office, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03- 1738, found that Mrs. Comas had failed to establish that she had rehabilitated herself since the license revocation. The 2006 denial referenced, among other grounds, the denial of her application for licensure in 2003 for fraud and dishonest dealing. The Office's denials of Mrs. Comas's previous applications for licensure cannot, however, serve as an independent basis for denial of the application at issue herein. Were the previous denials sufficient of themselves to provide a basis for denying Mrs. Comas's future applications, the Office could perpetuate the denial of Ms. Comas's future applications indefinitely without regard to any efforts of Mrs. Comas to prove herself entitled to licensure. Mrs. Comas's service as an officer of RPM Lenders The evidence presented by the Office is sufficient to establish that Mrs. Comas violated a final order of the Office by serving as an officer of RPM Lenders and its successor company, ROC Lenders, Inc., subsequent to signing a stipulation in December 2003 averring that she would not serve as a corporate officer of RPM Lenders. Mrs. Comas's role in responding customer complaints about the service provided by mortgage broker employed by RPM Lenders does not, however, rise to the level of acting as an officer of the corporation.8 Rehabilitation The evidence presented by Mrs. Comas is not sufficient to establish that she has rehabilitated herself in the 10 years that have elapsed since the Sipple transaction. Although she attends church and contributes to charities, she presented no evidence of any other community service. The lack of any disciplinary action against her real estate associate's license since it was issued is a factor in Mrs. Comas's favor, but she failed to present any evidence regarding the number of real estate transactions she handles, and it was, therefore, not possible to assess the frequency with which she handled the funds of others in the context of real estate transactions. Other than her testimony about the November 2008 conversation with Mr. Mazis, Mrs. Comas presented no evidence with respect to her apology to him or to any acknowledgment she made to him that she had acted improperly in the Sipple transaction. Mrs. Comas's letter of apology to Ms. Sipple consisted primarily of her attempts to cast her actions in the Sipple transaction in a light favorable to herself, to excuse her actions as efforts to assist Ms. Sipple, and to blame others, including Ms. Sipple, for the incident. Although Mrs. Comas expresses remorse for what happened, she does not accept responsibility for her actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order denying the application of Marta Comas for licensure as a mortgage broker pursuant to Section 494.0033(4), Florida Statutes, for the acts specified in Section 494.0041(2)(b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (p), (q), and (u)2., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondents Phillip A. Banks (Banks) was at all times Material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0324865. Banks was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Abode Realty, Inc., which was at all tines material hereto registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0232550. On August 24, 1985, Respondents received in escrow $2,200 from Patricia Turner, as a deposit on her agreement to purchase a home located at 1300 Westview Drive, Miami, Florida. Pertinent to this case, the agreement was conditioned on Ms. Turner's ability to qualify for and obtain a first mortgage, insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the VA, in an amount not less than $40,837. Ms. Turner's application for the subject mortgage was duly submitted to American International Mortgage Company (American International). That application was, however, denied because the property did not appraise at the contract price. Following the denial of her application for mortgage financing on the first house, Ms. turner entered into an agreement through Respondents, dated November 20, 1985, to purchase another home located at 2501 Northwest 155 Terrace, Miami, Florida. At that time, Respondents returned to Ms. Turner the $2,200 deposit on the first contract, and she in turn deposited such sums with Respondents as a deposit on her agreement to purchase the second home. Pertinent to this case, the agreement was conditioned on Ms. Turner's ability to qualify for and obtain a first mortgage, insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the VA, in an amount not less than $39,867. The agreement further provided: When this contract is executed by the Purchaser and the Seller and the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of the Purchaser, Purchaser shall be liable to Broker for full amount of brokerage fee. The agreed brokerage fee was 7 percent of the purchase price, or $2,800. The second home was owned by Independent Properties, Inc., a corporation owned, at least in part, by Banks. This ownership interest was, however, fully disclosed to Ms. Turner at the time the agreement was executed. Ms. Turner's application for the mortgage on the second home, as with the first home, was processed by American International. While that loan was being processed, Ms. Turner contracted to purchase and purchased, unbeknown to Respondents or American International, a different home (the third home). When a American International discovered this fact, Ms. Turner's application was disapproved because she lacked sufficient resources to afford two homes and because she could not comply with the FHA regulation which required that the buyer reside in the home. But for Ms. Turner's purchase of the third home, she would have qualified for the mortgage contemplated by the second agreement. Ms. Turner entered into the agreement to purchase the third home on or about January 20, 1986, and her application for the mortgage on the second home was disapproved by American International on April 1, 1986. In the interim, on January 30, 1986, Ms. Turner secured a loan of $1,000 from Banks on the pretext that her uncle had been charged with a criminal offense and the monies were needed to secure his release. The proof established, however, that Ms. Turner had no intention of fulfilling her agreement to purchase the second home, and that the pretext she used to secure $1,000 from Banks was but a subterfuge to secure the return of some of her deposit. Ms. Turner made no demand for the return of any of her deposit monies. She did, however, file a civil action in January 1987 to recover such monies. That action was dismissed on motion of Respondents, but faced with the threat of continued litigation Respondents offered to settle with her for $1,100. Ms. Turner rejected Respondents' offer, and commenced a second civil action. That action resulted in the entry of a final judgment in her favor for $1,100 and costs. Respondents are ready, willing and able to satisfy such judgment, and have attempted to satisfy such judgment through Ms. Turner's counsel without success.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 a Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian M. Berman, Esquire SMITH & BERMAN, P.A. 2310 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33020 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
