Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. William Kirschner is Petitioner's owner and chairman of the board. Stacey Interlandi is its President and principal broker. Petitioner is in the mortgage lending and brokerage business. All of the mortgage loans it makes are sold to investors. Petitioner held an active mortgage brokerage business registration (No. HB 592567137 00) issued pursuant to former Section 494.039, Florida Statutes, which was effective from September 1, 1990, until its expiration on August 31, 1992. 2/ It currently holds a mortgage brokerage business license (No. MBB 592567137 000) issued pursuant to Section 494.0031, Florida Statutes. The effective date of this license was September 1, 1992. The license expires on August 31, 1994. From October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, Petitioner acted as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans and/or a servicer of mortgage loans. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has made mortgage loans by advancing funds to mortgage loan applicants. With respect to each of these loans, however, the commitment to advance funds was made prior to October 1, 1991. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has sold or assigned mortgage loans to non-institutional investors, but for no monetary gain. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has serviced mortgage loans pursuant to agreements into which it entered prior to October 1, 1991. At no time has Petitioner been licensed as a mortgage lender pursuant to Chapter 494, Part III, Florida Statutes. On or about July 31, 1991, the Department sent the following written advisement concerning the revisions made by the 1991 Legislature to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to all registered mortgage brokerage businesses, including Petitioner: The 1991 Legislature revised Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1991. A copy of the new law is enclosed. Some of the changes which affect mortgage brokerage businesses are: A mortgage brokerage business may not make (fund) loans or service loans. Only mortgage lenders and correspondent mortgage lenders may make (fund) loans. Only mortgage lenders may service loans. A mortgage brokerage business may ONLY act as a mortgage broker. "Act as a mortgage broker" is defined as: "... for compensation or gain, or in the expectation of compensation or gain, either directly or indirectly, accepting or offering to accept an application for a mortgage loan, soliciting or offering to solicit a mortgage loan on behalf of a borrower, or negotiating or offering to negotiate the terms or conditions of a mortgage loan on behalf of a lender." There are no net worth requirements for mortgage brokerage businesses. A principal broker designation form must be completed and maintained in the principal place of business and a branch broker designation form must be completed and maintained at each branch. The required forms will be sent to your office prior to October 1, 1991. To act as a mortgage broker, a licensed individual must be an associate of a licensed brokerage business and is prohibited from being an associate of more than one mortgage brokerage business. "Associate" is defined as: ". . . a person employed by or acting as an independent contractor for a mortgage brokerage business . . ." Under the new law, no fee or notification to the Department is required when a mortgage broker becomes an associate of your business. However, the license of each mortgage broker must be prominently displayed in the business office where the associate acts as a mortgage broker. Note: The Department will discontinue processing change of status requests under the current law effective August 1, 1991. Mortgage brokerage businesses in good standing which hold an active registration are eligible to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause. The applicant must have: For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both; Documented a minimum net worth of $25,000 in audited financial statements; Applied for licensure pursuant to the saving clause before January 1, 1992 and paid an application fee of $100. Should you meet the above requirements and wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause or if you wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to Section 494.0061, please contact the Department for the appropriate application. These applications will be available in early September 1991. THESE CHANGES ARE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1991. PLEASE REVIEW THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE LAW CAREFULLY FOR OTHER CHANGES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR MORTGAGE BROKERAGE BUSINESS. As promised, application forms for licensure as a mortgage lender were available the first week of September, 1991. Petitioner requested such an application form on September 18, 1991. The requested form was mailed to Petitioner the following day. On December 31, 1991, Petitioner submitted a completed application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "saving clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. The application was accompanied by an application fee of $100.00 and an audited financial statement reflecting that Petitioner had a net worth in excess of $25,000.00. At the time of the submission of its application, Petitioner had an unblemished disciplinary record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of November, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4313 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of facts proposed by the Department: 1-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 8. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 9-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 16. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 17-21. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 22. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 24 6/-39. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 40. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William H. Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced on November 11, 1993. This adjudication was at least peripherally related to a mortgage loan he brokered which had closed on June 21, 1989. Mr. Hughes was deposed concerning the loan on December 20, 1991, in which deposition he lied. He was indicted on May 27, 1993 and pled guilty to perjury on September 3, 1993. At all times material, William H. Hughes held individual mortgage broker license number MB 262740745. He is a Respondent herein because he was convicted of perjury. DBF was immediately notified concerning Mr. Hughes' perjury conviction. The agency did not file its amended disciplinary action until July 22, 1994. It may be inferred that there was an original complaint to amend, but its date is not of record. The agency's chief witness testified that the agency did not do an immediate field audit of Mr. Hughes' business upon notification, did not file an immediate cease and desist order against his mortgage brokerage activities, and has at no time considered Mr. Hughes continuing to operate as a mortgage broker to be an imminent threat or danger to consumers. (TR 113-116) Apparently, periodic DBF field audits since the amended administrative complaint was referred to DOAH also have not caused DBF to move to expedite the instant case or take any emergency action. Mr. Hughes operated as a sole proprietorship, license number MBB 591623417, from 1968 until May 17, 1993. The loan at issue was closed June 21, 1989. The deposition that gave rise to the perjury occurred on December 20, 1991. The plea was September 3, 1993. The adjusdication of guilt was November 11, 1993. The sole proprietorship license was current until August 31, 1994. The sole proprietorship is a Respondent in this cause because its license was in effect at all times material. On May 17, 1993, Respondent Hughes converted his sole proprietorship to a corporation in which he was sole stockholder, President, and qualifying broker with license number MB 262740745. Janeen Davis was Vice President. This corporate entity was known as, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," license number MBB 593113739. On May 27, 1993, Respondent Hughes was indicted. On September 3, 1993, he entered a guilty plea to perjury. The corporation of which he was sole principal continued to operate until September 23, 1993, when the stock was transferred to James Etheredge as sole stockholder, with Respondent Hughes as qualifying broker. Corporate mortgage brokerage license MBB 593113739, continued in effect until January 12, 1994. This corporation is a Respondent herein because its license was in effect at the time of Mr. Hughes' guilty plea and adjudication of guilt. On November 17, 1993, James Etheredge applied for a corporate mortgage brokerage license in the name of the "new" corporation, "William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc.," owned exclusively by Etheredge, with Janeen Davis as qualifying broker instead of Respondent Hughes. On November 23, 1993, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of perjury and sentenced. On January 12, 1994, a new corporate mortgage broker license, number MBB 593113739-001, was issued to the new corporate entity. Respondent Hughes continued to work for the new firm as a mortgage broker. This corporate license, number MBB-593113739- 001, was renewed September 1, 1994 and is current through August 31, 1996. That licensed corporation is not a Respondent herein and DBF has stipulated that it has no charges or evidence against it. (TR 19-21; 47-48; 50). In 1989, William Neufeld had come to Respondent Hughes seeking a mortgage loan for a condominium located at B-801 Grand Mariner, Destin, Florida. Sugar Sands Development Corporation was purportedly selling the condominium to Neufeld. The purported purchase price was approximately eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000). Appraisals were provided to Respondent Hughes by the Seller to verify the value of the property. Respondent Hughes forwarded Neufeld's mortgage loan application to Carteret Savings Bank, which then accepted the loan. During this period of time, Carteret regularly called for a review appraisal for every loan, regardless of who did the original appraisal. Carteret regularly ordered a review from a different appraisal company to make sure that property valuation was true and accurate. It is inferred that Carteret performed its own separate appraisal on the B-801 Grand Mariner condomimium as it did in every other case. The parties to the loan brokered by Respondent Hughes were Sugar Sands Development Corporation as Seller, William Neufeld as Purchaser, and Carteret Savings Bank as Lender. Carteret Savings Bank funded the mortgage for the condominium after its own investigation and upon agreed terms. Respondent Hughes personally brokered the mortgage loan between William Neufeld and Sugar Sands Development Corporation, which was funded by Carteret Savings Bank. He received a $20,475 commission therefor. His commission amount was based upon points, which was in no way remarkable in the mortgage business. William Neufeld subsequently defaulted on the loan. At the time of the transaction, Respondent Hughes knew that the condominium was owned by an entity named Altus Bank prior to its transfer to Sugar Sands Development Corporation. On December 20, 1991, Respondent Hughes was deposed in a civil action resulting from Neufeld's default, Case No. 91-30398-RV, Carteret Savings Bank, F.A., v. First American Title Insurance Co., Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. In his deposition, Respondent Hughes testified as follows: Q: When, if ever, did you find out an entity by the name of Altus Bank was involved in these transactions? A: I don't know if -- to my knowledge, I did not know -- Altus wasn't involved in our transaction. We never dealt with Altus at all. So, to my knowledge, I don't know if I knew Altus was even involved in this unit until after this had already closed, because here again we were presented a contract of sale, we dealt directly with our customer, the buyer and really never had an occasion to even deal with the seller. * * * Q: You did not know, you had not heard any rumors, you had no indication whatsoever that Altus Bank had any interest in this unit at any time prior to the FBI coming to talk to you a year ago? A: No. I think that's the first time I knew that Altus was involved. Respondent Hughes was subsequently indicted on May 27, 1993 in Case No. 93-03069-01/RV, United States v. William H. Hughes, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. The indictment contained nine felony counts relating to an alleged "flip transaction" on the subject condominium involving Altus Bank, Sugar Sands Development Corporation as "straw man", and William Neufeld, the purpose of which was to artificially inflate the condominium's real property value and obtain an inflated loan amount of approximately $800,000 in loan proceeds for property truly valued at only approximately $385,000. The indictment alerted Carteret Savings Bank, which has since gone out of business, and other lending institutions to audit Respondent Hughes' transactions with them and to otherwise institute quality control reviews of loans he had placed with them. No discrepancies or dishonest dealings of any kind were uncovered by these institutions. On September 3, 1993, Respondent Hughes pled guilty to one count of engaging in perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1623, based exclusively upon his deposition testimony quoted supra. The remaining eight felony counts were dismissed. These counts were the counts alleging that Mr. Hughes knew of the "flip transaction" aspects of the loan. Exhibit P-9 shows the foregoing to have been a plea bargain which encompassed evidentiary factors. It was not merely a "plea of convenience." At formal hearing herein, Respondent Hughes admitted that knowing the question in the deposition, he gave the wrong answer. He has accepted responsibility for that wrong answer. However, he credibly denied any knowledge that a flip transaction was intended. He explained that he had understood that the loan amount was determined upon independent evaluations and appraisals which included projected renovation costs to be expended to conform the condominium to the needs of the Purchaser, Mr. Neufeld. On November 23, 1993, a federal judgment was entered against Respondent Hughes. Pursuant to that judgment, Respondent Hughes was adjudicated guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1623 by engaging in perjury. He was ordered to pay a special assessment of $50.00; to pay $1,724.50 in juror fees; was placed on probation for a term of three years; and was placed on home detention for a period of six months. Respondent Hughes' probation is not scheduled to end until November 1996. Respondent Hughes has continued to practice as a mortgage broker without interruption during the eighteen months since his conviction and is currently employed as a mortgage broker by William H. Hughes Mortgage Broker, Inc., the firm reconstituted with Mr. Etheredge as the sole stockholder and Janeen Davis as its qualifying agent as of January 12, 1994. See, supra. Respondent Hughes has practiced his profession since 1968 (27 years) with only this one bad incident on his record. Respondent Hughes continues to enjoy a good reputation in his wider mortgage brokerage business community, although the reputation testimony herein is diminished by the fact that many of those who have dealt with him and who have expressed reputation opinions to the witnesses who testified were not aware of his perjury conviction or its circumstances. Respondent Hughes' reputation for truth and veracity and for fair dealing in the mortgage brokerage community as it currently exists within the Florida Panhandle has remained "good" and "very good" since knowledge of his perjury conviction has become known in that community. Two mortgage brokers, two employees of lending institutions, one attorney and one bank officer testified as fact witnesses that they were willing to deal with Mr. Hughes as a mortgage broker in the future, despite their knowledge of his perjury conviction. Two of these persons were formerly employed by Carteret Savings Bank and were fully aware of all circumstances of his criminal case. DBF's only expressed reason for requesting license revocation instead of other permissible disciplinary penalties was its perception that the perjury in this case was directly related to the transaction of mortgage brokerage business.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order that: Finds Respondent Hughes individually, license MB 262740745, is guilty of the charged offense; Assesses an administrative fine against Respondent Hughes individually for $3,000, payable within 10 days of entry of the final order; and Places Respondent Hughes on probation until November 30, 1996, termination of probation to be conditioned upon his successful completion of his federal sentence; his practicing during probation under the supervision of a broker approved by DBF, and his being subject during this probation to unannounced DBF audit and review of all his transactions; and further providing that any violation of the final order, any discrepancy in his accounts, or any violation of Chapter 494 F.S. during his probationary period would subject him to immediate and summary revocation of his license. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RO 94-5114 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-8, 24-26 are covered in FOF 1-8 as necessary. Otherwise accepted but not adopted. 9-20, 22-23 Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 21, 27-31 Rejected as conclusions of law or legal argument, not proposed findings of fact Respondent's PFOF: 1-7 are introductory and labelled "Statement of the Case." They are covered within the "Preliminary Statement" of the Recommended Order. 8-17, 20-21, Accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate 23, 25-27 and/or cumulative evidence has not been adopted. 18, 24 Rejected as a conclusion of law, not a proposed finding of fact 19 Irrelevant 22 Accepted only as modified and covered in FOF 27-29 COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 J. Ladon Dewrell, Esquire Post Office Box 1510 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32541 Honorable Robert Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent was a licensed Mortgage Broker and the principal broker for Mortgage Associates of Countryside, located at 2623 Enterprise Rd., Clearwater, Florida. The Department was and is the state agency charged with regulating the activities of mortgage brokers in this state. In September, 1987, Andrew Grosmaire and Kevin Gonzalez, compliance officer and financial examiner, respectively, for the Department, pursuant to a complaint from Mark Snyder, conducted an examination of Respondent's affairs as they pertained to his operation as a mortgage broker. During the survey, which covered the period from August, 1986 through August, 1987, Mr. Grosmaire and Mr. Gonzalez examined between 50 and 60 loan files which had culminated in loan closings. In addition, they examined loan files which did not result in closings, bank account records, and other of Respondent's miscellaneous records. In order for an appropriate audit of a closed loan file to be conducted, it is imperative that the loan closing statement be included. Without it, the examiner cannot accurately determine what, if any, closing costs the borrower actually paid and if closing costs paid were consistent with those disclosed by the broker on the Good Faith Estimate Form at the initial interview. Of the closed loan files reviewed, these closing statements were missing from seven files. Respondent admits that several closed loan files did not have the required closing costs statement form enclosed. He attributes this, however, to the failure of his processor, an assistant, to place the closing statement in the file. They were not presented at hearing or thereafter. The investigators examined the Good Faith Estimate Forms in those files which culminated in loans and found that the form utilized by the Respondent failed to contain language, required by statute, which summarized the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. Respondent contends that the pertinent statutory section was not in existence at the time he was engaged in mortgage brokerage activities. This was found to be not true. The Act became effective July 1, 1986 and the files surveyed were from the period August, 1986 through August, 1987. Examination of the Good Faith Estimate Forms used by the Respondent in each of the cases which culminated in loan closing revealed that Respondent consistently underestimated closing costs. This resulted in the borrowers generally paying higher closing costs than was initially disclosed to them. On -loans applied for by Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, Mr. Iyer, and Mr. Toland. Respondent redistributed loan points to himself in an amount higher than that which was agreed to by the parties. In the Toland case, Mr. Toland agreed to pay a 1% loan origination fee in the amount of $996.00. The settlement statement dated approximately 2 months later reflected that Toland paid Respondent a loan origination fee of $1,128.00 in addition to a 1% ($664.00) loan discount fee to the lender. This latter mentioned discount fee was not disclosed in advance to Mr. Toland on the estimate form nor was the excess loan origination fee charged. It should be noted here that a second Good Faith Estimate Form, dated nine days after the original, reflecting a 3% loan origination fee, was found in the file. Though signed by Respondent, this second form was not signed by the borrower as required. It cannot, therefore, serve to support Respondent's claim that he advised the Tolands of the higher cost by this second form. There is no showing that the Tolands were aware of it. In the Iyer case, the estimate form dated September 19, 1986 reflected a points and origination charge of $1,332.50 which is 1% of the mortgage loan amount of $133,250.00. The Iyers were subsequently approved for a mortgage in the amount of $145,600.00. The closing statement dated March 6, 1987, almost six months later, reflects that the Iyers paid a 2% loan origination fee of $2,740.00 to Mortgage Associates and a load discount fee of $685.00 to the lender. Here again the Respondent claims that a second cost estimate form reflecting a 2% point and origination fee of $2,912.00 was subsequently executed by the Iyers. However, this second form, found in Respondent's files, is undated and fails to reflect the signature of either Respondent or the Iyers. It cannot, therefore, serve as proof that the Iyers were made aware of the change. It does appear, as Respondent claims, that the bottom of the second form, (here, a copy) , was excluded from the copy when made, but there is no evidence either in the form of a signed copy or through the testimony of the Iyers, that they were aware of the change. Consequently, it is found that the Iyers had not been made aware of the second estimate and had not agreed to pay as much as they did, in advance. As to the Snyder closing, both Mr. Snyder and Respondent agree that it was their understanding at the time the loan was applied for, that Respondent would attempt to obtain a lower interest rate for them than that which was agreed upon in the application and in the event a lower rate was obtained, Respondent's commission points would remain the same as agreed upon in the brokerage agreement. In that case, as Respondent points out, his commission is based on the mortgage amount, not the interest rate, and he would be entitled to the agreed upon percentage of the loan face amount regardless of the interest rate charged by the lender on the loan. The Snyders had agreed to a 1% commission to Respondent plus a 1% loan origination fee to the lender. When the lender agreed to lend at par, without an origination fee, Respondent appropriated that 1% to himself, thereby collecting the entire 2% called for in the application. This was improper. Respondent's claim that it is an accepted practice in the trade is rejected. The Snyders initially made demand upon the Respondent for reimbursement of that additional 1% and ultimately had to hire an attorney to pursue their interests. Respondent subsequently made a $400 partial reimbursement payment of the amount owed but nothing further notwithstanding the fact that the Snyders ultimately secured a Judgement in Pinellas County Court against him for $1,082.52 plus interest, attorney's fees and costs. As a result, the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Guarantee Fund will reimburse the Snyders for their loss. According to the investigators, the Snyders Toland, and Iyer files, in addition to the problems described, also reflected that Respondent received payments for other items which should have gone into an escrow account. These included such things as credit reports and appraisal fees. The Department requires that any money received by a broker other than as commission, be placed in the broker's escrow account pending proper disbursement. Respondent did not have an escrow account. Mr. Gonzalez looked at Respondent's overall operation, including closed files, in an attempt to correlate between income and outgo to insure that Respondent's operation was in compliance with the statute. In addition to his search for an escrow account, Mr. Gonzalez also examined Respondent's "Loan Journal" which by statute is required to contain an entry for each transaction in each loan. The purpose of this journal is to provide a continuing record to show when each item in the loan processing was accomplished. In Mr. Gonzalez' opinion, the Respondent's journal was inadequate. It contained repeat and conflicting entries for specific items which hindered the investigators' ability to determine an audit trail. In addition, all required information was not put in the journal in complete form in each account. In the opinion of the investigators, the Respondent's violations were significant in that they made it impossible for the Department to determine compliance with statutes and Department rules and inhibited the compliance examination. All in all, Respondent's way of handling his accounts, his failure to maintain an escrow account, and his unauthorized increase in commission income, all indicated his actions were not in the best interest of his clients. The investigators concluded that clients funds were not being handled properly and that the purpose of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to protect the consumer, was not being met. In Mr. Gonzalez' opinion, Respondent's method of business constituted incompetence as a mortgage broker and "possibly" fraudulent practice. It is so found. Both Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Grosmaire indicated they had extreme difficulty in attempting to locate Respondent after the complaint was filed by Mr. Snyder, in order to conduct their examination. They finally located him at a site different from that which appeared in the records of the Department. Respondent contends that the Department had been notified in writing within the required time, of his change of location when he filed a notice of fictitious name. He contends that after filing his notice of name change, he received no response from the state but took no action to inquire whether the change had been made. In any case, his current address was in the phone book and had the agents chose to look there, they would have found him. Respondent contends that the good faith estimates required by the statute are just that, an estimate, and that actual figures may vary from and exceed these estimates. This is true, but there is a procedure provided whereby the broker is to notify the client of a change in advance and if the change exceeds a certain amount, it may constitute grounds for voiding the contract. In paragraph 7 of the complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent used a form for the estimates which failed to contain a statement defining the maximum estimated closing costs. Review of the statement offered herein reflect this to be a fair analysis. However, Respondent claims that certain items cannot be predicted accurately in that some companies charge more than others for the same item and it was his practice to insert in the estimate portion of the form a "worst case scenario." However, at no time did he address in his form what could be the maximum a prospective purchaser might be expected to pay. Respondent "doesn't like" the total picture painted by the investigators concerning his operation. He claims it is cot a fair and accurate representation. In many cases, he claims, he expended funds on behalf of clients in excess of that he received in either commission or reimbursement and even though he may have received more than entitled in some cases, it "evens out over a period of time." Though this may be so, it is no way to do business. The state requires the keeping of accurate records and, just as the broker should not be required to assume responsibility for other than his own misconduct, neither should the client be required to pay more than is his legal obligation. Respondent professes to know the mortgage business and he resents having his qualifications as a mortgage broker questioned. In his opinion, he has trained himself well and has acted in good faith on the basis of the information available to him at the time. He ignores the impact of the Judgement of the court in the Snyder matter because he feels it was "unilateral." He believes the law is designed to protect the client and he wants to know who protects the broker. It is for that very reason, he contends, that fees paid in advance are not refundable. Mr. Sample feels the Department should be more informative to the brokers and get the governing regulations updated more quickly. Respondent cherishes his license and claims he needs it to make a living. He went out of business once before, several years ago, because of bad business conditions, (the reason he uses for not complying with the court order), but did not declare bankruptcy because he wanted to go back into business and pay off the judgements against him. Though he has been back in business for several years, he has failed to make any effort to pay off any of his former creditors even though in his former operation, he improperly tapped his escrow account for other business expenses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Howard E. Sample's license as a mortgage broker in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 88-2858 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Insofar as Petitioner's submission refers to testimony of a witness, that is considered as a proposed finding of fact. FOR THE PETITIONER; Accepted and incorporated herein & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as contra to the evidence A conclusion of law and not a finding of fact & 11a Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein - 18. Accepted 19. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein 25. & 26. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted &-29. Accepted 30. - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein FOR THE RESPONDENT: Nothing Submitted by way of Findings of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson St. Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Howard E. Sample 2465 Northside Drive Apartment 505 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Honorable Gerald Lewis Ccmptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 3 2399-0350
Findings Of Fact Petitioner presented one witness that had audited the books and records of Respondent. This audit revealed that Respondent had handled some 350 transactions involving mortgages and that on approximately 50 of those transactions the Respondent had withheld a commission more than authorized by statute or department rule. The witness testified to only a few of those transactions shown on his work sheet attached to a deposition admitted into evidence. Thereafter Respondent stipulated that if asked about all of the other transactions shown on the work sheet, this witness, and the auditor who performed the balance of the audit, would testify the same for those other transactions, viz. that the worksheet figures were extracted from the records of Respondent and the authorized commissions shown thereon were computed using either the statutory method or the rule method and that both methods would give the same results. These figures show that the Respondent overcharged the borrower on approximately 50 transactions as alleged. On approximately 2/3 of the transactions the funds were remitted to a master broker, and on the other 1/3 the funds were remitted to the borrower. Further, that the notes and mortgages were received by Respondent for delivery to his client some 4 to 6 weeks after he had disbursed the money from his trust account. Upon expiration of Petitioner's case Respondent renewed his motions for dismissal and further moved for dismissal on the grounds that the funds for a majority of the transactions involved were remitted to another broker, and for those remitted directly to the borrower (developer) the charges were not excessive but those actually proposed by the borrower-developer. This motion was denied and Respondent then testified in his own behalf. Richard Zaloudek percent has been a licensed mortgage broker since 1960 and is also a licensed real estate broker. He has been in the mortgage brokerage business since 1948. Prior to obtaining his mortgage broker's license he dealt in FHA mortgages which were exempt. He renewed his license automatically each year until September, 1975 when he received no response from the Comptroller's Office to his application for renewal. Since a valid license is required to operate as a mortgage broker, Respondent has been unable to so act since the expiration of his license in September, 1975. When Respondent was approached by the master broker representing Mortgage Development Corporation to sell mortgages for it, he questioned the legality of such transactions. He was presented with a copy of the opinion of the office of the Comptroller, Division of Securities, dated January 10, 1973. This indicated that the notes secured by mortgages that he was being solicited to sell complied with the statutes and rules affecting securities. Thereafter he advertised in the news media that he had these high interest paying notes secured by mortgage for sale. When a client came into his office to invest he would take their investment, deposit same in his trust account, and then forward to the master broker or borrower the deposit less the commission the borrower and master broker had authorized him to deduct. Thereafter the note and mortgage was mailed to Respondent who presented it to the investor. As a result of many people losing money in investments in promissory notes secured by mortgages on land, newspaper coverage of various facets of the land development industry became widespread. In several cases the various mortgage brokers, such as Respondent herein, were named in these articles in the newspapers; and press reports were issued by the Comptroller's Office that certain licenses, including that of Respondent, had been revoked. Because of the adverse publicity, not only did Respondent's mortgage brokerage business drop off and stop completely when his license was not renewed in September, 1975, but also his business as a real estate broker suffered. Respondent's testimony that he lost real estate listings totaling some two million dollars was not rebutted. Nor was his testimony that this represented a loss of some $70,000 in income.
Findings Of Fact At 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 Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: For the period September 1, 1987 through August 31, 1988, Respondent was registered as the principal mortgage broker for the company AFM. Respondent's license number, HT 0010066, and street address, 3200 N. Military Trail, Suite 300, Boca Raton, Florida 33431, were included on the mortgage broker business registration renewal form executed and submitted by Respondent to the Department. AFM's mortgage brokerage registration number was HY0019932. Ronald Mims performed an examination of the AFM business records for a period which included September 1, 1987 through August 31, 1988. One of the loan transactions examined by Mr. Mims pertained to a borrower/applicant named Frazer. The records maintained by AFM related to this transaction contained a good faith estimate, dated April 15, 1988, that was prepared and executed by Darlene M. Mannarino, as the AFM office manager. The file did not contain a copy executed by the borrower. The good faith estimate described in paragraph 2 provided, in part: In compliance with Chapter 494 of Florida Statutes; Lender/Broker hereby acknowledges receipt of an application fee in the amount of $ 300.00 , and agrees that this will be applied towards the settlement charges. If an acceptable commitment is not obtained or loan closing does not occur for any reason, this deposit will not be refunded. A copy of a check in the amount of $300.00 payable to "American Funding1 from Frazer Distributors was included in the AFM-Frazer transaction file. Also included was a loan application executed by Respondent as the AFM interviewer. None of the documents contained in the Frazer file dIsclosed the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (MBGF). Such documents did not disclose the escrow/trust agent if other the payee, American Funding. AFN did not have an escrow/trust account. The good faith estimate for the Frazer transaction provided for an estimated charge of $225.00 for an anticipated appraisal fee. Peter H. Sayles performed an appraisal for the Frazer transaction. The total amount billed to AFM by Sayles for he Frazer account was $350.00. Mr. Sayles was not paid for this work nor for an additional $100.00 due to him from AFM for a Roberts account. Mr. Sayles obtained a default judgment for these amounts in summary claims. Mr. Mims also obtained copies of records maintained by AFM related to a transaction for a borrower/applicant named Neger. A good faith estimate executed by the borrower on October 27, 1987, contained the same language as described in paragraph 3 above. The amount of the Neger deposit, however, was $250.00. The file did not contain a copy of the good faith estimate executed by AFM. The file held a copy of a check dated October 27, 1987, from Daniel Neger to "American Funding" in the amount of $250.00. The Neger loan application was signed by Darlene/Sherin Reynolds as the interviewer for AFM. The Neger documents maintained by AFM did not disclose the conditions or limits for recovery from the MBGF. Additionally, the documents did not disclose the escrow/trust agent for the transaction if other than the payee (American Funding). At the time of this transaction AFM did not maintain an escrow/trust account. At all times material to this case, Darlene Mannarino was not licensed by the Department. Except as noted above, Ms. Mannarino's duties and the type of payment she received for the work she rendered on behalf of AFM are not established by the record in this case. AFM did not maintain a mortgage journal in connection with the loan transactions it processed. Instead, AFM retained records in a card index file for loan applications. The records maintained in the card index file were incomplete and, consequently, inadequate to allow Mr. Mims to track the status and completion of loan transactions processed by AFM.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter a final order placing the Respondent licensee on probation for a period of two years. Further, it is recommended that the Department impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-0743 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. While the Department established that Sayles was not paid for appraisal services rendered, that does not imply nor establish that Respondent misused funds. Whether funds exist from which Sayles could be paid, is unknown. All that is known is that AFM, for whatever reason, did not pay Sayles. Paragraph 9 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as unsupported by the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 3 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelsohn Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Ill Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Jerald A. Goldstein JERALD A GOLDSTEIN, P.A. 3200 North Military Trail Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Mr. William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Hollywood, Inc., is a licensed corporate real estate broker engaged in real estate activities. Hollywood, Inc., is also a subdivider and builder of residential homes in Broward County. One of the qualifying brokers for Respondent Hollywood, Inc., is the Respondent William D. Horvitz, who also serves as President and a Director of the corporation. On or about March 12, 1981, Mildred McGehee, a real estate salesman working for the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., showed a model home and building in Rock Creek, a Hollywood, Inc., development, to Andrew and Linda Medvin. As a result of McGehee's efforts, the Medvins, as Buyers, signed a contract with Respondent Hollywood, Inc., as Seller, to construct and purchase a dwelling unit for a total purchase price of $118,900. Pursuant to the contract, the Medvins gave the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., a good faith deposit for $11,890 at the time the contract was executed. The Medvins' deposit was not placed into a broker's escrow account by the Respondent Hollywood, Inc. The subject contract required the Medvins to supply $11,910 cash at closing and to make application to a qualified lending institution for the mortgage balance, $95,100. Under the provisions of paragraph (c) on page two of the contract, the contract was contingent upon: "BUYER obtaining a firm commitment (the term 'firm commitment' as used in this Contract shall mean a written agreement by a Qualified Lending Insti- tution to make a mortgage loan to BUYER on the Property in the amount of the above MORTGAGE BALANCE) for said loan within thirty (30) days from the date of execution hereof by SELLER." Respondent's Exhibit 1. The mortgage balance referred to in the contract was $95,100. The failure of the Medvins to make and complete an application for the mortgage financing or failure of the Medvins to timely satisfy any conditions in the firm commitment was cause for default under the contract unless the Medvins made other arrangements satisfactory to Respondent Hollywood, Inc., for payment of the total purchase price at closing. The Medvins timely filed applications for $80,000 rather than $95,100 as set forth in the contract, with four lending institutions. Two of the lending institutions rejected the application, one offered a $75,000 loan and one, Hollywood Federal, offered a commitment of $80,000 subject to the Medvins' sale and verification of the sale of the home which they then owned. The delivery by the Medvins of the disapproval for mortgage financing from a qualified lending institution would have resulted in the return of the Medvins' deposit and termination of the contract. A copy of a disapproval of financing was never delivered to Respondent Hollywood, Inc., by the Medvins. The Medvins gave the letter of commitment with conditions issued by Hollywood Federal to Respondent Hollywood, Inc., pursuant to the contract. As long as the special conditions of the mortgage loan commitment made by Hollywood Federal were met, the lender was obligated to make the loan to the Medvins. The Medvins intended to personally supply at closing the difference between the amount due Respondent Hollywood, Inc., under the contract and the mortgage financing received from Hollywood Federal. Upon receipt from the Medvins of the mortgage loan commitment with conditions, the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., commenced construction on their home pursuant to the contract. The Respondent Hollywood, Inc., constructed a residence for the Medvins in accordance with the specifications contained in the contract and the changes and modifications to the residence requested by the Medvins during the course of construction. A condition of the mortgage financing commitment from Hollywood Federal received by the Medvins was that they sell their present home prior to February 19, 1982, the scheduled date of closing. The Medvins did not sell their present home prior to February 19, 1982, the scheduled date of closing. Section 2.C of the subject contract provides: Failure by the Buyer to timely make and complete application for mortgage financing or failure by the Buyer to satisfy any conditions in the firm commitment timely shall be cause for default of Buyer under Paragraph 7 (as hereinafter) of the Contract unless Buyer makes other arrangements satisfactory to the Seller for pay- ment of the Total Purchase Price at closing. (Emphasis added.) Respondent's Exhibit 1. Pursuant to the contract, the Respondent Hollywood, Inc., notified the Medvins that their home was constructed and complete and a closing date of February 19, 1982, was set. Although Linda Medvin had repeated contact with Hollywood, Inc.'s personnel between April 20, 1981, and February, 1982, regarding extras and changes to the house being constructed for her, the Medvins did not inform Hollywood, Inc., until February 10, 1982, that they did not intend to close on the home. The Medvins failed to appear at the closing which was scheduled for February 19, 1982. The contract provides that as soon as Seller notifies the Buyer of his readiness to close, it is the duty of the Buyer to execute all documents required by the lending institution in order to close the mortgage loan and home purchase simultaneously. The Respondent Hollywood, Inc., was informed by legal counsel that the failure of the Medvins to make arrangements satisfactory to Hollywood, Inc., for payment of the purchase price at closing constituted a default by the Medvins as Buyers under the terms of the contract and all payments including the deposit were to be retained by the Seller as liquidated damages. The Medvins through counsel demanded the return of their earnest money deposit. The Respondents have refused to return the deposit based on their belief that the Medvins were in default under the contract. The Respondent, William D. Horvitz, has not personally engaged in any dealings with the Medvins and is not the only licensed broker associated with Hollywood, Inc. The Respondent Horvitz was not involved either directly or in a supervisory capacity in the transaction between the Medvins and Hollywood, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents Hollywood, Inc., and William D. Horvitz. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire and Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Howard Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, (Department), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers in this state, and Respondent, Harriet Ijames, was a licensed mortgage broker. On February 17, 1989, Respondent entered into a Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department whereby she was placed on probation for 2 years for misconduct relating to the misappropriation of mortgage application fees, with the further requirement that she not act independently but under the supervision of a broker acceptable to the Department. On October 2, 1991, the Department filed a complaint against the Respondent alleging she had violated the terms of the prior Consent Order by conducting business as a mortgage broker without the requisite supervision. Thereafter, on April 29, 1992, Respondent entered into another Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department regarding the October, 1991 complaint by which she was again placed on probation conditioned upon her operating only under the supervision of an approved broker. This latter Order provided that any violation thereof would be automatic grounds for immediate and summary revocation of her license and also imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00. The Final Order incorporating that agreement was issued by the Department on July 13, 1992. In May, 1992, Respondent was contacted by Rhudine M. McGhee, a resident of Tampa, who had been referred to her by a mutual acquaintance. Mrs. McGhee indicated she was interested in purchasing another house. Somewhat later, Respondent contacted Mrs. McGhee and told her of a friend who had a house for sale. She also gave Mrs. McGhee the addresses of some other houses in the area which were for sale. Mrs. McGhee did not like any of them. Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker, and that she would have a real estate broker contact her. Respondent also offered to provide Mrs. McGhee with listings of Resolution Trust Corporation foreclosures in the desired price range. Some time later, the broker referred by Respondent showed Mrs. McGhee a house she liked and she signed a contract to buy it. In the interim, Respondent had taken a credit application from the McGhees over the phone and followed up with a visit to the McGhee home. On May 13, 1992, during the visit to the McGhee residence, Respondent had Mrs. McGhee sign a loan application. On that same visit, she solicited and received from Mrs. McGhee a check for $300.00, payable to the Respondent and subsequently endorsed and cashed by her, which reflected the check was the application fee for a loan. She specifically asked that the check be made to her, personally. When Mrs. McGhee asked Respondent about the check, she was told it would be credited to the purchase price at time of closing. This was not done and it was only later, after a complaint was filed with the Department, that Mr. Brigliadora, the mortgage broker with whom she was affiliated, repaid the fee from his company's funds. Though at hearing Respondent denied she took a loan application fee or that the check she received was for that purpose or bore any notation to that effect when received, Mrs. McGhee is quite certain she put that notation on the check at her husband's direction at the time she gave it to Respondent. Respondent claimed the check was for finding the house but Mr. McGhee specifically recalls Respondent indicating the check was to be an application fee to be credited against the purchase price. It is so found. On June 1, 1992, Respondent again returned to the McGhee home to have them sign a second loan application. This time Mr. McGhee was not at home and Respondent suggested to Mrs. McGhee that she sign her husband's name to the application. This was done. Respondent did not give the McGhees copies of the applications they signed but said she would bring them copies at a later date. This was never done. Though Respondent also denies soliciting the second application, her apparent signature appears on both application forms and it is found she did both solicit and sign the forms and the application fee check. The first application was for a loan of $80,000.00 at 8.5 percent. The second was for $36,000.00 at 8.625 percent. At the time of the solicitation, Respondent was employed by Frank Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker and owner of the Money Tree Mortgage Co. However, neither Respondent nor Mr. Brigliadora had notified the Department of their arrangement or obtained Departmental approval of the supervisory relationship. Clearly, Respondent knew the taking of an application fee, as the evidence indicates she did here, was inappropriate. Sometime in mid 1992, Respondent approached George Banks, a licensed mortgage broker in Tampa and owner of his own brokerage company, with a view toward working for him. In their conversation about that, they discussed the practice of application fees. Respondent indicated she wanted to take a fee of $200.00 to $300.00 up front, but Banks felt this was not proper, advised her so, and declined to accept her as a broker. Even when she claimed that other brokers took fees of this nature, he demurred, claiming he did not endorse the practice. Respondent worked for Mr. Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker, at his firm, Money Street Mortgage, for approximately 3 months during 1992. At the time she went to work for him, Respondent did not tell him she was under sanctions by the Department to have strict supervision and at no time did he agree to the Departmental supervision program. Mr. Brigliadora did not receive the $300.00 check Respondent obtained from the McGhees nor did he ever get the money it represented from the Respondent. It was only just before or at the closing on the property that he first became aware of the deposit. When he refunded the money to the McGhees, Respondent agreed to reimburse him but she never did. Normally, Money Street Mortgage does not take application fees on residential loans, and Mr. Brigliadora denies he ever approved or suggested to Respondent that she solicit them. When Respondent gave him the documentation on the McGhee loan application it did not include the required good faith estimate found in the brokerage agreement nor did the application form or any other document make the required disclosures. The application he got from Respondent does not constitute a brokerage agreement and Mr. Brigliadora never got one from the Respondent on this loan. What he received is no more than an application for a loan. Mr. James, the Department's Area Financial Manager, whose job includes the assignment of examiners and the review of investigations by examiners, knows Respondent as a licensed mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. He is aware of prior complaints received by the Department about the Respondent in the past. Two of them relate to the Final Orders previously mentioned herein. In the instant case, he recalls receiving a telephone call regarding a deposit of $300.00 given to Respondent and commenced an investigation into the incident. The current Administrative Complaint which resulted in this hearing was the outcome of that investigation. Based on his evaluation of the matters discovered in the investigation, he concluded that Respondent took a fee from a client without having a brokerage agreement with that client; failed to make the required full disclosure to a client; and misappropriated a fee which she received from a client; all of which are violations of various provisions of Chapter 494. In his official capacity with the Department, Mr. James had the duty to approve a supervisory mortgage broker for the Respondent as called for in the two prior Final Orders referred to previously herein. Neither Money Street Mortgage nor Mr. Brigliadora were submitted by Respondent for approval by the Department even though Respondent knew she was required to do so. Respondent claims she made it very clear to Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker. Nonetheless, Mrs. McGhee, she claims, insisted Respondent help her and offered to pay her for her efforts. Respondent claims that all Petitioner's witnesses lied about her and forged documents relating to her alleged activities. She denies she would ever cheat or disobey the rules because she knows she would lose her license if she did. Claiming she is well respected in the community, she asserts the Department did not thoroughly investigate the allegations against her and is, therefore, destroying her reputation over something which did not happen as alleged. Her assertions are not accepted, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case finding her guilty of the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein; revoking Harriett Ijames' license as a mortgage broker in Florida; and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa L. Elwell, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Harriett Ijames 8341 Paddlewheel Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
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.
