Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the incidents involved herein, the Respondent, Jerry L. Daniel, was licensed as a real estate broker in Florida under license number 365403. Petitioner, Division of Real Estate (Division), is and was the state agency charged with the responsibility for governing the conduct of real estate brokers in Florida. On August 19, 1984, and for several years prior thereto, Doteileen Mariner owned a three bedroom home located at 1260 Schenly Street, Port Charlotte, Florida. The property was encumbered by a first mortgage held by the First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Punta Gorda, Florida. Sometime during 1983 she decided to sell this property and made inquiries toward that end. She was first contacted by Roger King, a real estate agent, with a view toward purchasing her property and in August, 1984, Mr. King presented her with a contract to buy the property. King and the Respondent, who were purchasing it together, were to assume the existing first mortgage and give her a second, balloon, mortgage in the amount of $23,000.00 for five years with a $5,000.00 down payment and payment of interest only thereafter until the end of the period of the mortgage. Mrs. Mariner agreed to this proposal and signed a contract for sale which reflected a total purchase price of $69,500.00 on or about August 22, 1984. She was not given a copy of the contract at that time, however, and Petitioner's Exhibit 2, which purports to be a contract for the sale of the property, bearing her signature and that of the Respondent, dated August 22, 1984, reflects a total purchase price of $74,900.00 with $18,900.00 paid as deposit, and a new mortgage of $56,000.00. According to Mrs. Mariner, these were not the figures which appeared on the contract she signed. At the same time, Mrs. Mariner also signed an addendum to the original contract, dated August 21, 1984, one day prior to the contract which it purports to supplement, which is also signed by Respondent and Mr. King and which reveals that the existing first mortgage on $29,335.00 was to be paid at closing; that the seller, Mrs. Mariner, was to receive $5,000.00 in cash at closing; and that a second mortgage for $23,000.00 would be held for 60 months with interest payments at 10% per year to be made monthly in the amount of $191.67 each. Mrs. Mariner received the $5,000.00 down payment but did not receive the $18,900.00 deposit and, to the best of her recollection, did not agree to a new first mortgage being substituted for the existing first mortgage she had with First Federal. Respondent, on the other hand, indicates he made very clear to Mrs. Mariner, and the documentation which he admits to signing reflects, that the original first mortgage was to be paid off and a second first mortgage for a larger amount substituted therefor. Examination of the contract shows it has been modified by alteration of the figures thereon. When this is done is not known. Mrs. Mariner moved out of the property the next day after the contract was signed and at the closing, held in September, 1984, was given an envelope with certain documents in it which included a second mortgage on the property in the amount of $23,000.00 signed by both Respondent and Mr. King on September 24, 1984. This second mortgage included a clause which subordinated it to the new first mortgage on the property which was dated July 25, 1985, nine months subsequent to the date of the second mortgage. Mrs. Mariner did not examine the documents at that time but accepted her $5,000.00 down payment and left the area. She assumed the property was transferred and, in fact, received her monthly interest payments on time for several years. However, after a period of time, the payments stopped and after several months of trying unsuccessfully to reach Respondent, she finally contacted him and arranged to come back to Florida to meet with him. When she met with Respondent, he indicated he was having financial difficulties and was unable to make the monthly payments. However, he offered to deed her property back to her and to convey to her two other properties he owned, both of which were encumbered by substantial first mortgages. Both had some equity in them which, he claims, when added to the equity in her original property, would be adequate to make her whole and enable her to avoid any financial loss on her part. On July 10, 1986, Respondent executed a Quit Claim Deed to Mrs. Mariner for the property which she originally owned. This deed showed a first mortgage of $58,000.00 compared to the $29,355.00 first mortgage she originally had. Therefore, as a result of her dealings with the Respondent, she had her property back temporarily, had received $5,000.00 in cash, and had received some monthly payments of $191.67 each. She also had an indebtedness of approximately $30,645.00 more than she had when she met Respondent and because of her inability to make the payments on the new first mortgage, lost the property to foreclosure. Respondent and Mr. King arranged for interim financing on the Mariner property at a high rate of interest with a temporary lender until such time as they could arrange new first mortgage financing. This was done several months later and Respondent encumbered the property with a new mortgage in the amount of $58,400.00. That new first mortgage, dated June 25, 1985, was made payable to Standard Federal Savings and Loan Association and was recorded in the public records of Charlotte Count, Florida on July 2, 1985, prior to the recordation of the original second mortgage, dated September 24, 1984, which Respondent and King had given to Mrs. Mariner. It should also be noted that this second mortgage, dated September 24, 1984, reflects at the bottom of page 1, "subject to and inferior to that certain mortgage to Standard Federal Savings and Loan Association dated June 25, 1985 [sic], filed July 2, 1985 sic; recorded in Official Records Book 823, page 779 of the Public Records of Charlotte County, Florida in the original principal amount of $58,400.00." Respondent has not explained how a mortgage executed on September 24, 1984 can refer to as existing and legitimately be made subordinate to a first mortgage which did not come into existence until 9 months later. He claims total ignorance of how that happened. He assumed that since all documents were turned over to the title company at the time of closing, the second mortgage would be recorded at that time. This testimony is ingenuous and unbelievable. Mrs. Mariner received approximately $3,200.00 in interest payments from Respondent in addition to the $5,000.00 down payment. In the Spring of 1986, she was served with a summons for foreclosure of the first mortgage on her property. She has now lost the property and the difference between her equity in it at the time of sale to Respondent and the Deposit she received. Petitioner has alleged that Mrs. Mariner's loss was approximately $39,000.00. The exact amount of loss is irrelevant. What is pertinent is not the loss to Mrs. Mariner but whether Respondent's conduct here constitutes misconduct and it obviously does. Respondent denies any responsibility for this situation. He claims he was approached by Roger King in 1984 with the opportunity to buy Mrs. Mariner's property. At the time, he was involved in investing in family homes owning two or three at that time and up to twenty to thirty thereafter. At the time of this transaction, he had had only one other deal with Mr. King who had done the negotiations for the purchase of the Mariner property and drafted the documents. Respondent, however, is the only buyer listed on the contract though King appears as a mortgagor on the second mortgage. Mr. Daniel claims he saw Mrs. Mariner first at the closing at Federal Title Insurance Company on September 24, 1984. He relates that the contract for the purchase of the property and the addendum were signed prior to closing and he was not present at the time Mrs. Mariner signed them. He claims not to know who got her to sign them. Respondent claims, however, that he explained all the provisions of the transaction to Mrs. Mariner prior to the closing including the fact that her existing first mortgage would be paid off; that a new first mortgage in a higher amount would be placed on the property; and that the mortgage she was holding would be subordinate to the new first mortgage. She denies this. He asserts that he took out 90 day interim financing arrangement with Family Credit at a higher interest rate for the sole purpose of allowing the deal to close so that Mrs. Mariner could be on her way to Delaware. His assertions of concern for Mrs. Mariner's welfare are not believable. Respondent claims he told Mrs. Mariner at closing that her second mortgage would not be recorded until after permanent financing through a new first mortgage was secured and that the new institutional mortgage would be superior to hers. She does not recall this, however, but her testimony was so indefinite, vague, and unsure, it is difficult to determine what Mrs. Mariner was told. As was found before, his contention is unworthy of belief. Respondent also contends that the rental income from the property was supposed to be between $700.00 and $800.00 per month which would have been sufficient to pay not only the monthly payment on the first mortgage but also the interest payment on the second mortgage. However, these expectations were not realized and he received only rental income of $550.00 per month which was sufficient to pay only the first mortgage. Because of financial reverses he was having at the time with some of his commercial properties, which put him in a poor cash flow position, he stopped making payments on both the first and second mortgages early in 1986 and subsequently lost Mrs. Mariner's property to foreclosure. Respondent overlooks the fact that the lower rental he obtained, $550.00 per month, was more than sufficient to cover the $191.67 per month owed to Mrs. Mariner and still return him a substantial return on his investment of $5,000.00 if he had been a legitimate investor in rental property. It is obvious from the evidence that Respondent had far more in mind than that reasonable return. Respondent contends it was never his intention not to pay Mrs. Mariner. However, Respondent bought a piece of property which had a current first mortgage of $29,335.00. He replaced that with a new first mortgage of $58,400.00 which gave him a cash surplus of approximately $27,000.00. The second mortgage which he owed to Mrs. Mariner was for $23,000.00, well below the amount he had received in cash as a result of the refinancing. It is clear that Respondent took this money and failed to pay Mrs. Mariner even though there were adequate funds available from the refinancing to do so. It is clear that he intended for her to be in a subordinate position and that he intended to make, and did make, a substantial amount of money out of the transaction. He tried to deed Mrs. Mariner's property back to her, along with two other properties in which he had equity, to reduce her loss, but she refused his offer. His financial difficulties resulted in his going into bankruptcy through which he lost his entire financial base. Since his bankruptcy, Respondent has been employed as a broker/manager at the Bee Ridge office of Schlott Realtors and as a part of his duties, is responsible for hiring, training, and supervising sales associates. Larry D. Romito, manager and president of the Florida division of Schlott Realty, learned of the Respondent from two or three of his existing sales associates who spoke highly of him. As a result of their recommendations, Mr. Romito sought Respondent out and spent a substantial amount of time with him before offering him a job with the company. During more than fifteen hours of interview time, Respondent spoke quite frankly about his financial difficulties and their effect on him as well as what led up to them. Since Respondent has come with the company, his performance has been exemplary. He has been involved in excess of one thousand transactions and his leadership has been remarkable. There are nine managers in the company and Respondent is to be recognized as the number one manager of all divisions at the next award period. Mrs. Romito has found Respondent to be very objective and reliable and has had no questions with regard to Respondent's honest or integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a real estate broker be revoked and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 but that the revocation be suspended for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Commission. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1989 at 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 16th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4573 The following constituted 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. FOR THE PETITIONER; Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected. At the time in issue, Respondent's license was issued c/o Jerry Daniels Realty, not Schlott Of Florida. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein except for that statement that the new first mortgage was concealed from Federal Savings and Loan Association of Punta Gorda. Rejected as a restatement of testimony which is accurately recited. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein FOR THE RESPONDENT; Accepted in so far as it indicates the contract was drafted by someone other than Mrs. Mariner and that the contract and addendum were signed at her house. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Mrs. Mariner denies being told recording her mortgage was being withheld. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dana J. Watts, Esquire 700 Sarasota Way Sarasota, Florida 34236 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact This case involves the consideration of the Respondent's attempt to assess documentary stamp tax, penalty and interest on the document which the Petitioner recorded; said document being entitled Mortgage Consolidation, Modification and Extension Agreement. This document is recorded in Book 6855 and page 73, Broward County, Florida, Official Records. The date of recordation was December 30, 1976. By joint stipulation, a copy of the document in question has been admitted as joint Exhibit No. 1 by the parties. The Notice of Proposed Assessment setting forth the amount claimed is found as an attachment to the petition. The date of the assessment is May 18, 1977. The only change in the claim by the Respondent, is the concession by the Respondent that the 100 percent penalty no longer applies and that a 25 percent penalty is now in effect. This change may be found in the letter of the Respondent's attorney dated December 12, 1977, which is admitted and made a part of the record herein and attached hereto. As demonstrated, there is no factual dispute between the parties on the issue of what document or item is being claimed as taxable. The dispute arises over the question of taxability. The respondent claims that the document is taxable under the authority of Section 201.08, F.S. and Rule 12A-4.53, F.A.C. The latter provision is an adaptation of the authority set forth in State, Department of Revenue v. McCoy Motel, Inc., 304 So.2d 440, (1 DCA, Fla 1974). The Respondent's assertion of taxability under the theory in McCoy supra is correct. The correctness of the Respondent's interpretation may be understood by contrasting the facts in the McCoy case with those in the case of sub judice. In the McCoy case, McCoy Motel, Inc., in a promissory note which is referred to as the "first note," promised to pay the sum of $1,850,000 to Keyes-Penn Mortgage Company together with interest. McCoy then paid documentary stamp tax on the full amount of the note. Keyes-Penn Mortgage Company subsequently assigned an undivided 67.57 percent interest in that note to the Monumental Life Insurance company and made a further assignment of 32.43 percent of the interest to the Volunteer State Life Insurance Company. On a later date, McCoy gave a note, referred to as the "second note," to Alison Mortgage Investment Trust in which it promised to pay $3,500,000 together with interest. Alison in return agreed to pay Monumental Life Insurance company, as payee of the "first note," payments on the "first note" when they became due. This agreement to pay Monumental Life Insurance Company was premised upon the expectation that McCoy not be in default under the terms of the first or second note, or the corresponding mortgages which were in support of those notes. In this situation, the first and second notes were secured by mortgages on the same property. The mortgage note between McCoy and Alison Mortgage Investment Trust was what is commonly known as a "wraparound" mortgage. That is to say, the "second note" represented the total indebtedness of the "first note" and an additional sum. McCoy paid documentary stamp tax on $1,650,000 of the second note which represented the total sum of the loan less the amount that had been loaned on the "first note." The State of Florida disagreed with this approach and contended that the full amount of the "second note" should be subject to documentary stamp taxes. The Trial Court rejected the State's position and held that the amount of $1,850,000 was part of a contractual agreement between McCoy and Alison Mortgage Investment Trust in which certain monies were to be paid through Alison to the holder of the first mortgage and that McCoy was not under obligation to pay money within the meaning of Chapter 2011, F.S., and not subject to tax for the amount of the "first note." The Appellate Court rejected this contention and concluded that the full amount of $3,500,000 plus interest was a loan made to McCoy Motel, Inc., with the understanding that McCoy was obligated to pay back that amount to Alison Mortgage Investment Trust. Therefore, an excise tax was due on the full amount. This conclusion by the Appellate Court was reached on the basis of an examination of the terms and conditions of the second note which set forth the amount of payment, the amount of interest, and the steps to be taken in the event of default on the payments by McCoy. The Appellate Court held that this obligation to pay the $3,500,000 plus interest was not an executory, contingent or conditional agreement between the parties. Further, the Court held that the documentary stamp tax would be due regardless of whether a part or all of the obligation of a renewal note was subjected to the conditions of Chapter 201., F.S., under an original note. The exception to that ruling, the Court stated, would be if it was a renewal within the meaning of Section 201.09, F.S., which would exempt it from taxation. The McCoy "second note" was not found to be one of the exempt categories. It was not found to be exempt because it was felt that it was not a reiteration of the original note, but was an enlargement of the original contract and obligation, thereby precluding any exemption. The underlying theory of the Court in its holding in McCoy, supra, is grounded on the Court's opinion that the liability to pay documentary stamp tax and the amount of the tax to be paid shall be determined by the form and face of the instrument and not by proof of extrinsic facts. In the present case, Lake Taft Village, Inc. was obligated to pay two first mortgages on separate parcels of land. The initial first mortgage holder was Southport American National Bank, to whom Lake Taft Village, Inc. owed $150,000 under the terms of the note and mortgage. The second parcel was mortgaged to a group known as "Curcie Brothers." This group was owed $450,000 under the terms and conditions of the note and mortgage. Lake Taft Village, Inc. decided to sell the property covered by the two first mortgages. The purchaser of that property was the Petitioner, The Lakes of Pembroke Pines, Inc. At the closing, The Lakes of Pembroke Pines, Inc. paid $970,000 by making a $60,000 down payment and assuming the two mortgages in the amount of $150,000 and $450,000. In addition, Lake Taft Village, Inc. took back a second mortgage for $310,000 from The Lakes of Pembroke Pines, Inc. This second mortgage was a purchase money mortgage and was subordinate on the entire property, encumbered by the two first mortgages. However, before this second mortgage was recorded, the seller and Petitioner entered into an agreement whose terms and conditions are found in the Joint Exhibit No. 1, which is the subject of the dispute. As stated before, this document is entitled Mortgage Consolidation, Modification and Extension Agreement. The document is in fact a "wraparound" mortgage. The reason that it is considered to be a "wraparound" mortgage may be found in the examination of the document itself. The document consolidates the preexisting first mortgages, in which Southport American National Bank and "Curcie Brothers" are the mortgagees, with the second mortgage held by Lake Taft Village, Inc. Moreover, it establishes an interest rate for the payment from the Petitioner to Lake Taft Village, Inc., in addition to the schedule of payments of interest and principle. It also establishes the method by which parcels of property which are encumbered by one of the two first mortgages may be released by the holder of the "wraparound" mortgage. The holder of that mortgage initially was Lake Taft Village, Inc. This provision pertains to the amount of the $150,000 mortgage held by Southport American National Bank. The terms of the document call for the Lake Taft Village, Inc. to pay the first mortgage holder "Curcie Brothers" in lieu of payments by the Petitioner who has assumed that mortgage. Other terms of the document pertain to prepayment of the first mortgages by Lake Taft Village, Inc.; matters to be considered in the event of defaults on the terms of the "wraparound" and numerous other clauses agreed to by the parties in the mortgage consolidation. One further significant item within the document, pertains to the satisfaction agreement between the Petitioner and Lake Taft Village, Inc., in which Lake Taft Village, Inc. is allowed to pay off the first mortgages and be entitled to the assignment of those first mortgages instead of a satisfaction. The terms in the the document clearly indicate that Lake Taft Village, Inc. and the Petitioner are agreeing to modify the conditions under which the Petitioner assumed the two first mortgages at the closing with Lake Taft Village, Inc. It also indicates that there is a consolidation of the responsibilities which the Petitioner has under the assumption of two first mortgages, into an integrated arrangement to pay those mortgages and the amount of $310,000 which constitutes the amount of money owed under the second mortgage held by Lake Taft Village, Inc. The terms of the "wraparound" mortgage being separate and apart from the terms of the assumption of the two first mortgages, and the conditions set forth in the second mortgage to Lake Taft Village, Inc.; it is the Petitioner's responsibility to pay documentary stamp tax on these written obligations, in accordance with Section 201.08, F.S. The exception being if the "wraparound" mortgage constitutes a renewal of the existing promissory note within the meaning of Section 201.09, F.S. It does not constitute a renewal for the existing promissory note, because it is an enlargement of the terms and conditions of the assumption of first mortgages and notes, by changing their terms and consolidating them with the second mortgage held by Lake Taft Village, Inc. Therefore, a comparison of the McCoy "wraparound" mortgage and that of the Petitioner shows them to be sufficiently similar in nature to make the authority set forth in McCoy, supra, applicable. Under that statement of authority, the authority of Section 201.08, F.S. and Rule 12A-4.53, F.A.C., the Petitioner owes documentary stamp tax, penalty and interest. The amount of documentary stamp tax is $1,365. The penalty is 25 percent of that amount, in keeping with the concession set forth in the December 12, 1977, letter of the Respondent's attorney and the interpretation of the undersigned, which is to the effect that a 25 percent penalty shall be imposed for all proposed assessments not final on July 1, 1977. This is in keeping with the provisions of Section 201.17, F.S., as amended by Chapter 77-281, Laws of Florida. This penalty is subject to further reduction if a compromise is entered into between the parties. Interest should be charged at 1 percent per month from the beginning date, in keeping with terms and conditions of Section 201.17, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the proposed assessment of May 18, 1977, be upheld, in that the documentary stamp tax in the amount of $1,365 be upheld and that a penalty in the amount of 25 percent or such lesser amount as compromised by the parties be assessed together with interest. Done and Entered this 6th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Norman N. Zipkin, Esquire 225 Northeast 35th Street Miami, Florida 33137 Cecil L. Davis, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 194, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is the following clause on Form DBF-F-24, which form is incorporated by reference in Rule 3D-40.09(2), Florida Administrative Code: If the above commitment or a commitment in an amount and/or upon terms acceptable to the undersigned is obtained and said mortgage loan is not closed because (I) (We) have not fulfilled our part of this agreement, (I)(We) agree to pay $ the application deposit being a part, for obtaining said commitment. The Association contends that this type of charge is not authorized in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and is prohibited by other provisions of law. The validity of the above-cited clause is the sole issue here.
The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The facts which the Department asked Respondents to admit by Petitioner's Second Request for Admissions (Pet. Ex. 3) and Paragraphs 1-32 and each odd-numbered paragraph from 33-117, inclusive, of Petitioner's First Request for Admissions (Pet. Ex. 2) are conclusively established. Rather than recite all of those undisputed facts as findings, this Recommended Order will summarize those facts as necessary and make additional findings on the relatively few disputed issues of fact which were raised during the final hearing. The Financial Transactions Between February 1, 1980, and October 31, 1982, Davide, Inc., brokered 43 real estate mortgage loans which consisted of a wraparound second mortgage securing a promissory note in an amount equal to (1) the amount of "new money actually advanced to the borrower out of the wraparound mortgagee's pocket, plus the amount of the principal balance remaining on the first mortgage. There was no evidence how the interest rate on any of the 43 wraparound mortgage loans compared to the interest rate on the corresponding first mortgage loan. All 43 loans included, as an addendum to the wrap- around mortgage, the following agreements between the wrap- around mortgagee and the borrower: Mortgagor shall pay the taxes and insurance deposits required by Senior Mortgagee. The Mortgagor shall comply with all of the terms and provisions of the Senior Mortgage other than with respect to the payments of the principal and interest due. If the Mortgagor shall fail to so comply with all of the terms, provisions and conditions of the Senior Mortgage so as to result in a default under it (other than with respect to pay ments due upon the note secured by the Senior Mortgage) that failure on the part of the Mortgagor shall constitute a default under this mortgage and shall entitle the Mortgagee, at its option, to exercise any and all rights and remedies given the Mortgagee in the event of a default under this Mortgage. The Mortgagee agrees to pay to the holder of the Senior Mortgage the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage together with all interest accruing under it as and when required by the terms of the Senior Mortgage; therefore, by paying the constant monthly installments each provided to be paid from the date of funding this mortgage to and including the date the Note secured hereby becomes due at which time the Mortgagee's payment obligation shall terminate. At such time of termina tlon of the Mortgagee's obligation, the balloon balance due upon [sic] the Note secured hereby shall be credited for an amount aggregating the principal then owing upon the Senior Mortgage plus all sums which were paid as principal to the Senior Mortgage by the Mortgagee. All those payments provided to be paid by the Mortgagee pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3 above shall be made by the Mortgagee before the expira tion of the applicable grace periods provided for those payments as contained in the Senior Mortgage. The Mortgagee does not assume any of the obligations of the Mortgagor under the Senior Mortgage except as provided above with respect to principal and interest payments due after this mortgage has been funded. If the Mortgagee shall default in making any required payment of principal or interest under the Senior Mortgage, the Mortgagor shall have the right to advance the funds necessary to cure that default and all funds so advanced by the Mortgagor, together with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum shall be credited against the next installment(s) of interest and prin cipal due under the Note secured by the mortgage. The Mortgagor and the Mortgagee covenant and agree not to enter into any agreement with the holder of the Senior Mortgage modifying or amending any of the provisions dealing with payment of princi pal or interest under the Senior Mortgage without the prior written consent of the other. All 43 loans are short-term loans which are designed, by their terms, to become due before the first mortgages were, by their payment terms, to be paid in full. The loan application statements and closing statements related to each of the 43 wraparound mortgage loans show the first mortgage balance as, respectively, part of the amount of the loan and part of the disbursements to the borrowers. But both make clear that those items which refer to the amount of the balance on the first mortgage which the wraparound mortgagee agreed, in the addendum, to pay during the life of the wraparound mortgage. The first mortgage balances were not paid off by the wraparound mortgagee, nor was cash in the amount of the first mortgage balance disbursed to the borrower out of the wraparound mortgagee s pocket. In each of the 43 wraparound mortgage loans, the mortgage brokerage fee or commission would exceed the maximum allowable by law if computed only on the "new money," but would not exceed the maximum allowable by law if computed on the total face amount of the promissory note secured by the wraparound mortgage. If they were excessive fees, the total amount of the excess would be $22,508.29, and the Department's report of examination (Pet. Ex. 1) would identify the amount of the excess that should be refunded to each borrower. Finally, the mortgage brokerage fee actually charged on each of the 43 loans much more closely approximates what would be the maximum fee if computed on "new money" than what would be the maximum fee if computed on the face amount of the promissory note secured by the wraparound mortgage. B. The Department's Actions The Department apparently has not had the occasion to apply the law, which is now codified as Section 494.08(3), Florida Statutes (1983), and the Department's rules promulgated under it, to precisely the financial transactions shown by the evidence in this case. But since at least 1973, the Department consistently has interpreted the law and rules in various cases involving wraparound mortgages as requiring the maximum mortgage brokerage commission or fee to be computed on the new money" rather than on the total amount of the promissory note secured by the wraparound mortgage. In 1979, the Department considered two similar financial transactions: One was a specific refinancing wraparound second mortgage in which the wraparound mortgagee was obligated to make payments due on the first mortgage "out of sums paid hereunder"; the other was the generic purchase money wraparound second mortgage transaction in which the seller/wraparound mortgagee remains liable on the first mortgage. The Department concluded that, in both cases, the maximum fee should be computed on the "new money." The conclusion in the latter case was based upon the complete absence of any assumption by the wraparound mortgagee of a preexisting indebtedness of the borrower on the first mortgage. In the case of a purchase money wrap- round second mortgage, the wraparound mortgagee always was and simply remains liable on the first mortgage. The conclusion in the former case is based upon a determination: (1) that the wraparound mortgagee's assumption of the obligation to pay the first mortgage was not unconditional, but rather was conditioned upon the wrap- around mortgagee's receipt of payments on the wraparound mortgage; and (2) that the first mortgagee acquired no cause of action against the wraparound mortgagee. The Department acknowledged at the time that its interpretation was based upon the two sets of facts under consideration and that the Department was not foreclosing the possibility of reaching the opposite conclusion on other sets of facts. In recent years, Department personnel consistently have advised mortgage brokers of its position regarding computation of maximum fees on wraparound mortgage loans, as summarized above. Department personnel have on occasion attended meetings of Florida mortgage brokers in Miami and elsewhere in which the subject has been discussed and the Department's position publicly stated. There is no evidence whether Davide or any representative of Davide, Inc., attended any of those meetings or became aware of the Department's position before June, 1982. Although Davide attended the final hearing, he did not testify. In June, 1982, the Department and Respondents began communications regarding the maximum brokerage commission or fee on wraparound mortgage loans. The Department advised Respondents that it believed the maximum fee should be computed on the "new money." C. Respondents' Response Since approximately May 5, 1981, Respondent had relied on advice of counsel that the maximum mortgage brokerage commission or fee should be computed on the entire face amount of a wraparound mortgage. Counsel qualified his opinion, acknowledging that there was no judicial construction of the statute and that his interpretation could be wrong. Counsel's opinion did not mention, and apparently did not even consider, any Department rule interpreting the statute. Rather, the opinion was based primarily upon counsel's assessment that any other interpretation of the statute would render it unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. On or about September 27, 1982, Respondents' counsel wrote a letter to the Department and seemed to agree that Respondents would conduct an audit and refund any excess fees charged on the wraparound mortgages. The Department completed its audit on December 3, 1982, and sent Respondents a copy on December 13, 1982. The audit specified alleged excess fees charged on the 43 wrap- around mortgages and on seven straight" mortgages. (Pet. Ex. 1) Respondents' counsel responded by January 10, 1983, letter, again seeming to indicate that Respondents agreed to refund excess fees "as applicable." But by January 20, 1983, letter, Respondents' counsel again wrote the Department to advise that Respondents would refund excess fees on the seven "straight" mortgages, but not on the 43 wraparound mortgages. Based on the above facts, I find that the Department did not mislead Respondents concerning the Department's position. Specifically, Respondents were not misled by the erroneous reference in Rule 3D-40.00(3), Florida Administrative Code, to Section 494.08(4), instead of Section 484.08(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order requiring Respondents, Davide & Associates, Inc., and Salvatore G. Davide, to refund to each of the first 43 borrowers identified in the report of examination (Pet. Ex. 1) as "Mortgagor(s)" the amounts identified therein as "Overcharge" to the borrower. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter W. Wood, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman T. Isis, Esquire Post Office Box 144567 Coral Gables, Florida 33114 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 5th day of March, 1984.
Findings Of Fact A Quit-Claim Deed was executed the 3rd day of March, 1975, by Bayshore 21, Inc., first party to Marc Broxmeyer an undivided 70 percent interest; Gerald Schefflan and Pearl Schefflan, his wife, an undivided 20 percent interest; and Yetta Young an undivided 10 percent interest. The deed was recorded in Official Records Book of Dade County, Florida. The deed reflects that no documentary stamp taxes were affixed to the deed. At the time of the conveyance there existed upon the property three outstanding mortgages: one in the amount of One Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,450,000) in favor of Washington Federal Savings and Loan; one in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106) in favor of Sidney Salomon, et al.; and Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($12,500) in favor of Harold Kravitz. The total consideration for the conveyance amounted to Three Million Three Hundred Forty- Two Thousand Six Hundred Six Dollars ($3,342,606). The undisputed facts of the transaction as outlined at the hearing and agreed to by the Petitioners' attorney are as follows: Prior to August 17, 1974, all the outstanding stock of a corporation known as Tepmon of Florida, Inc., (Marvin Glick, presidents and controlling person and Eugene J. Howard, secretary) was held by Sidney Salomon, Jr., Hid Salomon, III, Elliot Stein, the Estate of Preston Estep and John Soult. On or about April 17, 1974, these people entered into an agreement for purchase and sale of corporate stock with Bayshore 21, Inc., pursuant to which Bayshore 21, Inc., agreed to purchase for Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,500,000) all of the outstanding capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. At the time, Tepmon of Florida, Inc., had as its only asset a certain parcel of real property known as the Golden Strand Hotel, as shown by suit, Shoprite Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Tepmon, Inc., et al. in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Case No. 74-29983. Pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement, a closing was to be held in various stages on August 19 and 20, 1974, at which time Sidney Salomon, et al., delivered to Bayshore 21, Inc., all of the capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Bayshore 21, Inc., in turn executed and delivered at the closing a chattel mortgage in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106), the security for which there was sixty-nine (69) shares of capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., which stock represented the outstanding stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., and carried with it the ownership and control of said corporation. Also given to Sidney Salomon, et al, by Bayshore 21, Inc., at the closing was a purchase money mortgage in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollars ($1,880,106), which mortgage secured the real property known as the Golden Strand Hotel. The reason for the two separate security devices, one the chattel mortgage secured by the outstanding sixty-nine (69) shares of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., stock and the other the real property mortgage secured by the Golden Strand Hotel, was that the parties contemplated that upon Bayshore 21's acquisition of the outstanding Page 3 of 7' pages capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., Tepmon would be dissolved and completely liquidated. Mindful that such liquidation would render valueless as collateral the capital stock of Tepmon, the parties provided in a collateral security agreement, dated August 20, 1974, that the purchase money real estate mortgage would constitute the substitute collateral security for repayment of the outstanding purchase money obligation owed by Bayshore 21, Inc., to Sid Salomon, et al., effective upon the dissolution of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Subsequent to acquiring all the capital stock of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., Bayshore 21, Inc., did in fact effectuate a complete dissolution and liquidation of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Pursuant to such dissolution, the sole asset of Tepmon of Florida, Inc, the Golden Strand Hotel, should have become titled in the name of Tepmon of Florida, Inc.'s sole stockholder, Bayshore 21, Inc., in order to give effect to the validity of the purchase money mortgage. This is not what occurred however, as Sidney Salomon, et al., point out in their Cross-Claim to the aforementioned suit, the truthfulness of which assertions have been admitted by the Petitioners. The September 5, 1974 deed of conveyance of the Golden Strand Hotel from Tepmon of Florida, Inc., to Petitioners (which should have been to Bayshore 21, Inc.) contained only minimum stamps in the amount of eighty-five cents (85). As a result of the Cross-Claim in the aforementioned suit filed by Sidney Salomon, et al., against Petitioners, a stipulation and agreement was entered into resolving the matter in a manner which gave effect to the purchase money real estate mortgage given by Bayshore 21, Inc., to the Salomons. Pursuant to such stipulation, the Petitioners agreed that "the allegations made in the Cross Claim . . . are true and correct and Cross Claimants are entitled to the relief prayed for therein. Cross Defendants [Petitioners] have no defenses thereto, legal or equitable, or any kind whatsoever Pursuant to this stipulation, the Petitioners agreed to execute Quit-Claim Deeds conveying any interest they may have received in the property pursuant to the September 5, 1974 deed of conveyance from Tepmon of Florida, Inc., to Bayshore 21, Inc., the entity which was the sole stockholder of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., at the time of its dissolution and liquidation. By Quit-Claim Deeds dated January 2, 1975, Gerald and Pearl Schefflan conveyed their interest to Bayshore 21, Inc., Yetta Young conveyed her interest back to Bayshore 21, Inc., Marc Broxmeyer conveyed his interest back to Bayshore 21, Inc., and the last Board of Directors of Tepmon of Florida, Inc., comprised of Marvin Glick and Eugene Howard, also conveyed any interest that entity may have retained back to Bayshore 21, Inc. At this point Bayshore 21, Inc., finally held the title it was supposed to have acquired upon the dissolution and liquidation of Tepmon of Florida, Inc. Also at this point the validity of the purchase money real estate mortgage given by Bayshore 21, Inc., to Sidney Salomon, et al., was reestablished and the parties were returned to the posture called for and required by their purchase and sale agreement dated April 17, 1974. When, on March 3, 1975, Bayshore 21, Inc., conveyed title to the Golden Strand Hotel to the Petitioners in this action, by unstamped deed, the conveyance was a voluntary conveyance. At the time of the conveyance, three outstanding mortgages encumbered the real property. Such mortgages were a One Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollar ($1,450,000) mortgage in favor of Washington Federal Savings and Loan; the One Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand One Hundred Six Dollar ($1,880,106) purchase money mortgage in favor of Sidney Salomon, et al.; and a Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollar ($12,500) mortgage in favor of Harold Kravitz. When Petitioners took title to this real property, they took title subject to three outstanding mortgages. The Hearing Officer further in summary finds: The transactions related in the foregoing findings of fact ultimately transferred title of real property to Bayshore 21, Inc., pursuant to an agreement dated April 17, 1974. Fee simple title was then transferred from Bayshore, Inc., to Petitioners by Quit-Claim Deed dated March 3, 1975, subject to mortgage liens.
Recommendation Affirm the assessment of documentary stamp taxes made by the Respondent in this cause. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene J. Howard, Esquire 2212 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
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
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended for violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Irving Zimmerman holds Mortgage Brokerage Registration No. 90-3337. An Order of Emergency Suspension of License was issued by the Department of Banking and Finance dated March 24, 1975 and served on Respondent Irving Zimmerman by certified mail. Said Emergency Order is now in effect: Through his attorney, Milton R. Wasman, Respondent Zimmerman requested this formal administrative hearing. The attorney for Respondent, Mr. Milton R. Wasman, called the undersigned Hearing Officer on the day immediately preceding this hearing, that is June 23, 1975, requesting that the hearing be postponed because of a physical disability of said attorney. Said request was denied because of the late hour of request and because of grievous inconvenience to the parties and to the witnesses that had been subpoenaed. Said request was denied orally by telephone to Respondent's attorney whereupon said attorney requested that the transcript of the proceeding be made available. Said attorney was assured that he could view the transcript upon his request when it was available. Upon request of William Corbett, Counsel for the agency, authorization was given to take the deposition of witness Joseph M. Magill, a witness who could not attend the hearing. Said deposition is filed with this record. The attorney for Respondent Zimmerman, Mr. Wasman appeared in behalf of the Respondent at the taking of said deposition in Miami, Florida on July 18, 1975. The following instruments were made part of the record: Summons dated March 24, 1975; Order of Emergency Suspension of License filed March 24, 1975; Petition for Hearing filed by Respondent's attorney; Deposition of witness for the agency, Mr. Joseph M. Magill; Transcript of record of this hearing and also transcript of record at the taking of deposition. On or about July 10, 1974, Mr. Leonard G. Pardue issued a check in the amount of $7,500 payable to "State Farm Mortgage Co., escrow account" for the purpose of making a mortgage loan to Hans G. and Ann M. Widenhauser. Subsequently, after the Widenhausers decided not to make this loan, the Respondent contacted Mr. Pardue and attempted to negotiate a substitute loan to Alan and Marcia Hollet. After that loan did not close, Mr. Pardue, by his attorney, Mr. Roger G. Welcher, wrote several letters to Respondent which demanded a return of the $7,500 to his client. Mr. Pardue filed a civil suit against Respondent to recover said funds; however, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent has failed or refused to return the money. Mr. Bernard Supworth made a mortgage loan to Robert E. and Madeline Pope in June of 1972, through the Respondent as broker. The monthly payments were made to Respondent who in turn was supposed to remit the funds to Mr. Supworth. Subsequently, on or about January 25, 1974, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth that the mortgage was being paid off and Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction thereof to Respondent. Later, Mr. Supworth learned that the Pope mortgage had been paid off in July, 1973, and that a check had been issued by Dade Federal and Savings & Loan Association on July 9, 1973, payable to State Farm Mortgage in the amount of $3,544.98. Notwithstanding such payment in full on the Pope mortgage in July, 1973, Respondent continued to remit monthly payments on it to Mr. Supworth. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to receive any monthly payments after the mortgage had been satisfied and to date has not received all of his money on the Pope transaction. Respondent Zimmerman negotiated another mortgage loan to Mr. Supworth to James and Phyllis Lowe, as borrowers in the amount of $4,600 to be paid in the amount of $97.74 per month. These payments were to be paid by the Lowes to the Respondent, who was to remit said payment to Mr. Supworth. Thereafter, on or about November 21, 1973, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth, by memorandum, that this mortgage must be paid off. Thereupon, Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction of Mortgage to Respondent. He continued to receive monthly payments from Respondent on the Lowe mortgage up until January, 1975. Mr. Supworth later learned that the Lowe mortgage had been paid in full to Respondent in October, 1973. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to this transaction. On or about August 15, 1973, Mrs. Judith Valenza made a mortgage loan at the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Later Mrs. Valenza negotiated a mortgage loan through Respondent, as broker, to pay off the existing mortgage to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Pursuant to that transaction, Mrs. Valenza closed said loan through Respondent, as broker. Thereafter, a check was issued on "Irving Zimmerman Trust Account" in the amount of $3,510.78, and payable to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. The check was returned because of "insufficient funds". As of the date of the hearing, the Commercial Bank of Kendall had not received payment of said check from Respondent. On or about January 28, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Magill executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $3,500 in favor or Helen R. Stahl, as trustee, at the offices of Respondent. Respondent failed to account for or deliver money to the person entitled thereto, on demand failed to disburse funds in accordance with the agreement, and failed to keep funds in a trust account.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an applicant to register as a securities salesman with Realty Income Securities, Inc., said application having been submitted to the Division of Securities on February 2, 1975 and is currently pending (Testimony of Dove). During the period of approximately February through - September, 1973, Respondent, a registered mortgage broker, was employed by Financial Resources Corporation of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in the sale of promissory notes secured ostensibly by first mortgages upon land located in Highlands County, Florida. These notes and security documents were issued by Equitable Development Corporation of Miami Beach, Florida. The notes were payable to "investors" at 14 percent interest per year, payable monthly for several years at which time the full principal balance would become due. The mortgage deeds recited that Equitable Development Corporation held the land which secured the notes in fee simple, free and clear of all encumbrances except real estate taxes. The mortgage deeds further recited that Equitable reserved the right to convey the land to a purchaser under an installment land contract subject to the lien of the mortgage and would deliver to the National Industrial Bank of Miami, an escrow agent, a copy of any such agreement for deed and a quit-claim deed which would be held in escrow. They also provided a procedure by which under any default of Equitable, the escrow agent would deliver the escrow documents to the investor (Testimony of Dove, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). Respondent's association with Financial Resources Corporation came about as a result of a visit by Mr. Robert Rinehart, President of the firm, who explained the mortgage sales program to him and stated that the security instruments were indeed first mortgages. Additionally, Rinehart supplied Respondent with brochures, letters, and documents containing questions and answers concerning the program and the protection afforded thereby to investors. Respondent personally viewed the property in question at Highland Park Estates and observed that over a hundred homes had been constructed which were of a value from $14,000 to $40,000. He also observed that docks had been built on the lake in the project area and that almost all of the roads had been paved. He was shown the MIA appraisal on the property which stated that Rinehart's representations as to property values were accurate. Equitable further represented to him that the notes in question were exempt securities in that they came within the provisions of Section 517.06(7), F.S., concerning the issuance or sale of notes secured by a specific lien upon real property created by mortgage or security agreement. In fact, Respondent became so convinced of the merits of these transactions that he had his mother invest twenty thousand dollars in the program (Testimony of Respondent, Watts; Respondent's Exhibits 1,2). In September 1973, Respondent formed Florida Income Resources Corporation, a mortgage brokerage firm. He did not sell any of the Equitable notes for a period of some months and, prior to commencing sale of them through his firm in the Spring of 1974, his attorney looked over the various aspects of the Equitable program and advised him that everything seemed "open and above board." Respondent thereafter on April 9 and August 1, 1974 sold to William H. Mott secured promissory notes of Equitable Development Corporation in the amounts of $2,000 and $2,250 respectively (Testimony of Respondent, Zawadsky; Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). During the period of these sales, letters of Albert George Segal, attorney, were being sent to investors advising them that he had examined the title to the real property purchased and that it was free and clear of encumbrances and constituted valid first mortgages (Respondent's Exhibit 3, Stipulation). Administrative proceedings were brought against Respondent by the Division of Finance involving sales of the notes in question resulting in a settlement by stipulation whereby Respondent did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, but agreed to a suspension of his mortgage broker's registration for two years. Respondent's firm secured no appraisals or title searches on the property involved in the sales to Mott (Testimony of Respondent).
Recommendation That the allegations be dismissed and that Respondent Edgar A Dove be registered as a securities salesman if he otherwise meets the qualifications set forth in Section 517.12, Florida Statutes and Chapter 3E-30, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. Gordon Brown, P.A. 301 W. Camino Gardens Boulevard Suite B P.O. Box 1079 Boca Raton, Florida 33432
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
