Findings Of Fact At the time of CMNI's application, Mr. Giunta was president of CMNI and, as such, exercised primary control over the day-to-day activities of CMNI (Tr.12). Mr. Giunta is also the president of Christian Investors Network, Inc. (CINI), and exercised similar control over the activities of that corporation (Tr. 11-12). Mr. Giunta, CMNI, and CINI have never been licensed as mortgage brokers by the Department (Tr. 12-13). CINI, with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Giunta, placed advertisements in the St. Petersburg Times (Tr. 13). One such advertisement appeared in St. Petersburg Times edition of April 20, 1986, under the heading "Loan Information." That advertisement stated "Major Real Estate Financing" and "Residential Real Estate." (Exhibit 1). Sometime in the middle of 1986, Paul Mark called Mr. Giunta in response to an advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times. Mr. Mark was seeking a mortgage loan or loans to build several houses on real estate he owned and so informed Mr. Giunta, who indicated to Mr. Mark that he could arrange a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark (Tr. 28-29). Messrs. Mark and Giunta met shortly after the telephone call. Mr. Mark handed Mr. Giunta a package of documents including a site plan, survey, credit information and a completed mortgage loan application. Mr. Giunta again stated that he would have no problem arranging a mortgage loan for Mr. Mark and requested a fee for such service in the amount of $300.00 (Tr. 30-31). After the meeting, Mr. Mark sent to Mr. Giunta a check made out to Mr. Giunta in the amount of $300.00, together with a letter dated July 16, 1986, confirming that Mr. Giunta would secure mortgage financing (Tr. 31-33); Exhibit 3). In October of 1986, Clifford Clark called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance a certain parcel of property owned by Mr. Clark. Mr. Giunta stated that he could arrange mortgage financing for Mr. Clark at an interest rate of approximately ten percent (Tr. 48-49). After the telephone contact, Messrs. Clark and Giunta met and Mr. Giunta had Mr. Clark fill out a residential loan application (Exhibit 7). Mr. Clark provided Mr. Giunta with originals of his deed to the property and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta indicated that he could obtain mortgage financing for Mr. Clark and requested a fee of $250.00, whereupon Mr. Clark gave Mr. Giunta a check for that amount (Tr. 49-51). In early 1986, Robert Miraglia called Mr. Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a second mortgage. Mr. Giunta arranged to meet with Mr. Miraglia to discuss the requested loan. In August of 1986, Russell Foreman contacted Gerald Giunta in response to a newspaper advertisement, seeking a mortgage loan to refinance his home (Exhibit 5). On August 26, 1986, Mr. Foreman met with Mr. Giunta and at Mr. Giunta's request gave him copies of his deed, a survey of the lot, the mortgages to be satisfied and other real estate related documents. Mr. Giunta assured Mr. Foreman that there would be no problem in obtaining a mortgage loan and requested a fee of $200.00. Mr. Foreman wrote a check for that amount and gave it to Mr. Giunta (Exhibit 5). Mr. Giunta never informed Messrs. Mark, Clark, Miraglia and Foreman that he was not a licensed mortgage broker. In approximately April of 1986, Mr. Giunta met with Mr. Arthur M. James, Area Financial Manager for the Department's Tampa Regional Field Office. At that meeting, Mr. James explained to Mr. Giunta that he could not offer to arrange or negotiate mortgage loans on behalf of clients and collect a fee for such service without first becoming licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker (Tr. 84). At some point prior to May 8, 1986, Mr. Giunta was contacted by the Department and informed of the statutes and regulations applicable to advertising his services in the area of real estate financing (Exhibit 2; Tr. 23-24). At some point in 1987, CMNI, with the knowledge and approval of Giunta, listed "Christian Mortgage Network, Inc." in the yellow pages of a local telephone book under the heading of "Mortgages." (Exhibit 1; Tr. 15).
The Issue Whether Assertive Mortgage LLC’s (“Assertive Mortgage”) application for a mortgage broker license should be granted.1 1 Unless stated otherwise, all statutory references shall be to the 2020 version of the Florida Statutes. See generally McClosky v. Dep’t of Fin. Serv., 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the entire record of this proceeding, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: OFR is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokering, mortgage lending, and loan origination.8 Toshia Glover became a Florida-licensed mortgage broker in 1999, and she became licensed in Florida and Georgia as a mortgage loan originator in 2000. At some point after 2003, she obtained a Florida real estate broker’s license. In 2006, Ms. Glover became a Georgia-licensed mortgage broker. Ms. Glover operated a mortgage broker company called A+ Loans from 2005 until September of 2008. The economic downturn that occurred in 2008 decimated her real estate and loan origination businesses and forced her to discontinue operations. 7 Pages 9 and 10 of the Transcript erroneously attribute comments by Petitioner’s counsel to counsel for Respondent. 8 Prior to 2010, OFR issued mortgage broker licenses to individuals and businesses. Since 2010, OFR has issued loan originator licenses to individuals and mortgage broker licenses to businesses. Therefore, the individual mortgage broker license is the historical equivalent of the current loan originator license. Section 494.001(18), Florida Statutes, defines a “loan originator” as “an individual who, directly or indirectly, solicits or offers to solicit a mortgage loan, accepts or offers to accept an application for a mortgage loan, negotiates or offers to negotiate the terms or conditions of a new or existing mortgage loan on behalf of a borrower or lender, or negotiates or offers to negotiate the sale of an existing mortgage loan to a noninstitutional investor for compensation or gain.” Ms. Glover moved to Georgia from Florida during the fourth quarter of 2008, and sustained herself by doing odd jobs. Ms. Parrish estimates that she earned less than $10,000 in 2009. In February of 2009, OFR unsuccessfully attempted to personally serve an Administrative Complaint on Toshia Glover alleging that A+ Loans and Ms. Glover, as the principal broker of A+ Loans, received improper compensation of $1,530 and $600. Those allegations amounted to violations of sections 494.0038(1)(a) and (1)(b)1. Florida Statutes (2005 and 2006), and rule 69V-40.008(1). In March and April of 2009, OFR published notice of the Administrative Complaint in the Sun-Sentinel daily newspaper. After Ms. Glover and A+ Loans did not respond to the Administrative Complaint, OFR issued a “Default Final Order and Notice of Rights” (“the Default Final Order”) on April 22, 2009, immediately revoking Ms. Glover’s mortgage broker license and imposing a $7,000 administrative fine for which Ms. Glover and A+ Loans were jointly and severally liable. Ms. Glover and A+ Loans were also required to refund a total of $2,130 to one or more borrowers. Ms. Glover married her current husband on December 12, 2012, and has not used her maiden name since. She will hereinafter be referred to as Ms. Parrish. Ms. Parrish owns Assertive Mortgage. In September of 2020, Ms. Parrish, on behalf of Assertive Mortgage, filed an application with OFR for licensure as a mortgage broker. The application identified Ms. Parrish as Assertive Mortgage’s president and qualifying individual. Ms. Parrish is the owner and president of Assertive Mortgage. OFR determined that Assertive Mortgage’s application could not be granted because the Default Final Order had revoked Ms. Parrish’s mortgage broker license.
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. Suite 206 1882 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308 For Respondent: Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Fletcher Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation issue a final order denying Assertive Mortgage, LLC’s, application for a mortgage broker license. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2021. H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. Suite 206 1882 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Russell C. Weigel, Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Fletcher Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Anthony Cammarata, General Counsel Office of Financial Regulation The Fletcher Building, Suite 118 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0370
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned finds as follows: At all relevant times, respondent was a licensed mortgage broker, holding license number 3256. (Exhibit A) On November 26, 1974, Carl Sciacca and George Williams, the general partners of a limited partnership known as University Professional Plaza Ltd., entered into a written contract with respondent to procure a mortgage loan commitment. Mr. Sciacca first went to respondent because respondent had been highly recommended to him. The amount of the mortgage was to be $2,450,000.00 and the commitment was to be procured "on or before 21 days from date all required exhibits are presented...". The agreement further provided that University would pay to respondent a brokerage fee in the amount of $24,500.00 upon funding of the loan. (Exhibit B) On the same date, November 26, 1974, University delivered to respondent a check in the amount of $7,500.00. This check bears the notation "For partial brokerage commission to be held in escrow." (Exhibit C) On November 27, 1975, respondent used said check to purchase a cashier's check and the money was never placed in escrow by respondent. While some correspondence from someone denoting an interest in the loan did transpire, the loan was never consummated. Sometime after the expiration of 21 days from November 26, 1974, Mr. Sciacca requested respondent to refund the deposit. A dispute arose between respondent and University regarding whether or not respondent had received from University all the required documents pertaining to the procurement of the loan. Respondent stated that University had not acted in good faith and thus was not entitled to a refund of the deposit. When attorneys were brought into the picture, it was learned that respondent no longer had all the deposit money. Respondent still has not refunded the $7,500.00 to University, however, respondent and University have now entered into an agreement whereby respondent and his wife executed a mortgage note to University in the amount of $9,000.00 secured by a second mortgage on their condominium apartment. This arrangement is satisfactory to University and represents complete settlement of the $7,500.00 owed to University, along with attorney There is some dispute in the evidence as to the parties' understanding of both the disposition to be made of the $7,500.00 deposit when the check was delivered to respondent and the actual terms of the mortgage loan commitment agreement. It was Sciacca's and William's opinion that all necessary documents for the procurement of the loan had been delivered to respondent and that if a loan were not procured within 21 days, the deposit was to be returned to University. It was respondent's opinion that the 21 days was to run from the date of receipt. of all necessary documents and that respondent had never received from University an accurate financial statement. Respondent further testified that he informed Mr. Sciacca of some problems involved with procuring the loan and that he would need some of the $7,500.00 to straighten out those problems. It was respondent's testimony that, despite the notation on the check "to be held in escrow", Sciacca told respondent to use whatever he needed to procure a loan.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, it is recommended that: Respondent be found not guilty of violations of F.S. Section 494.05(1)(a) , (b) , or (c) or Section 494.05(2); Respondent be found guilty of violations of F.S. Section 494.05(1)(e) , (f) , and (g) and F.A.C. Rule 3-3.06(7) recognizing that the latter two statutes and the Rule involve the same offense - the failure to place the deposit in a trust fund or escrow account; and The Division of Finance issue, in such manner as it deems appropriate, a public reprimand or censure regarding respondent's violations as set forth above. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Ehrlich, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Division of Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Barry Chapnick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Attorney for Division of Finance Steve E. Moody, Esquire MOODY & JONES 207 E. Broward Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Jack E. London, Esquire 2134 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33020 Attorney for Carl Sciacca and George Williams, members of the general public
The Issue Whether Mortgage Broker License No. 3534 should be suspended or revoked under Section 494.05, F.S. At the hearing, the Respondent filed an answer to the charges in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, incorporating therein affirmative defenses. Rule 28-5.25(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the party may file an Answer which may contain affirmative defenses within 20 days of service of the Petition. Respondent's basis for late filing was inadvertence and neglect of its counsel. The Answer contained a general denial of the allegations and set forth affirmative defenses asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Petitioner to pursue its claims for alleged actions which took place on or before October 19, 1974, which was prior to the issuance of the mortgage broker license to Respondent. Further defenses included the claim that the Administrative Charges and Complaint are vague and ambiguous, that Petitioner had taken written action against Respondent without a hearing and denied it due process of law prior to the filing of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, thereby constituting double jeopardy, that Petitioner has unilaterally and without hearing denied Respondent renewal of its license, therefore denying it due process of law and claiming that petitioner is estopped from proceeding on the ground that it violated Section 494.06(5), in not keeping confidential the examination and investigation of the Respondent by giving press releases designed to influence the outcome of the hearing. The Hearing Officer permitted the late filing of the Answer and Affirmative Defenses at the hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner who claimed lack of notice as to the affirmative defenses. Respondent made a motion at the hearing to quash or abate the charges on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction on the basis set forth in its aforesaid pleading and on the grounds that Section 494.05(1) permits the petitioner only to investigate actions of licensees and not to suspend or revoke such licenses. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer under the authority granted to deny, suspend or revoke licenses pursuant to Section 494.05, F.S. From statements of counsel at the hearing, it appears that Respondent's application for yearly renewal of its license was denied by Petitioner on September 3, 1975. However premature such a denial might have been, the question is not in issue in the instant proceeding. Nor is any purported violation by Petitioner of Section 494.06(5), concerning confidentiality of its investigations of Respondent. Both parties made opening statements and closing arguments. The Petitioner presented its case through two witnesses and submitted documentary evidence. The Respondent did not call, any witnesses. Petitioner also called Frank H. Roark, Jr. President of Respondent Corporation as a witness. Mr. Roark, after being sworn, declined to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination. The Hearing Officer thereupon excused the witness. Upon a showing by the Petitioner that the books and records of Respondent Corporation had been requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum and its request that Mr. Roark be required to identify the corporate books and records in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, over objection of Respondent's counsel, the Hearing Officer permitted Mr. Roark to testify for this limited purpose.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Banking and Finance of the State of Florida issued Mortgage Broker License Number 3534 to Respondent on October 10, 1974 (Petition and Answer). The transactions of the Respondent which are the subject of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, concern the purchase by investors/lenders of corporate promissory notes issued by a land development company which are secured by mortgages on its land. The purpose of selling the note is for the land development company to raise funds for the development of real property. The sales of the notes were made by Respondent to individual investors. Usually these transactions were handled through what was termed a "Master Broker" who was a middle man between the land developer and the Respondent mortgage broker which actually made the individual sales of the notes. Typical of the manner in which Respondent conducted these transactions was to enter into an agreement with an investor termed an "Application To Purchase a Mortgage" for a certain face amount at a specified interest rate with interest payable monthly and with concurrent delivery by the investor to Respondent of the stated sum under the conditions that the note would be executed, the mortgage recorded, and the note and recorded mortgage delivered to the investor-purchaser. In due course, a promissory note issued by the land development corporation (the borrower), was delivered to the investor, along with a mortgage deed to specified real property to secure the note. Some notes were payable on an interest only basis and some on a principal and interest basis. Some involved the issuance of title insurance policies and others did not. In some cases, Respondent remitted funds involved in the transaction to the "Master Broker" and in some cases directly to the land developer, less an amount retained by Respondent, ostensibly for its fees, commissions, and/or other charges. The funds were placed into escrow bank accounts when they were received from the investors by Respondent and then sometimes on the same day or in most cases several days or weeks later, the funds less the amount retained by Respondent, were forwarded on to the "Master Broker" or directly to the developer (testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3 & 4). Acting upon a request of the State Comptroller to have all mortgage companies examined, in the latter part of July, 1975, Mr. Lawrence W. Hunt, a Financial Examiner Supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Finance along with three assistants went to the Respondent's office to examine its records and determine from the examination whether or not violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act had been committed. Utilizing source documents from the company records, Mr. Hunt and his associates prepared a worksheet and listed thereon various items of information gleaned from these records (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). After preparation of the worksheet, overcharges as to the 402 transactions identified in the worksheet were computed by Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, Deputy Director of the Division of Finance, solely from the worksheet obtained by the examiners (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Such overcharges were computed with respect to maximum fees or commissions which a broker could charge in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3-3.08, Florida Administrative Code, in consideration of the amount of funds retained by Respondent, Mr. Hunt is not a state auditor and his examination of records did not go into the depth of an audit such a compilation of financial statements. His work consists basically of an examination which involves obtaining information from corporate records and placing it on worksheets so it can be analyzed. During Mr. Hunt's visit to Respondent's place of business, he received full cooperation of its officers and employees and found the records to be in good order. He also had no reason to question any of the entries in any of the records that he observed. Neither he nor Mr. Ehrlich had received complaints from any individual or organization about Respondent's operations prior to his visit. He did not at any time contact any of the lenders or borrowers involved in Respondent's transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2). On October 11, 1974, the Division of Finance issued a "Memorandum to all Mortgage Brokers" in which it was stated that it had been brought to the Division's attention that a number of mortgage brokers in transactions (such as those under consideration here), were remitting investors' funds to the land developer rather than placing the funds in an escrow account, and that such funds were being remitted in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note. The Memorandum warned that this practice could result in substantial losses to the broker in repaying investors should the land developer fail and was also in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act and could lead to the suspension or revocation of a license under Section 494.05, (1)(f), Florida Statutes. This section concerns placement of funds received in escrow accounts where they shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized (Respondent's Exhibit A). The Memorandum was sent to Respondent among others Mr. Hunt, during his examination of Respondent's records, found that Respondent ,had changed its escrow procedures approximately the date that the bulletin was issued and that there were no discrepancies after that date concerning escrow monies. By further correspondence in December, 1974, and May and June of 1975, Respondent's President posed various questions to Mr. Ehrlich to clarify certain aspects of escrow account requirements and received replies thereto (Respondent Composite B - Respondent's Exhibit C, D, F and G. (Note: There is no Exhibit E) In 402 separate transactions conducted by Respondent during the years 1973, 1974, and 1975, the mortgages which were purchased by the investors were delivered to the investor within varying periods from one day from the sale date until almost two months from the sale date. Forwarding of funds by the Respondent to the "Master Broker" or to the land development company was also accomplished in these transactions within varying periods of time from the sale date. These ranged from the same date as the sale to periods of a month or so thereafter, but usually on the date of delivery of the mortgage to the investor. The amounts forwarded by Respondent consisted of the face amount of the note and mortgage, less a certain amount which was retained by the Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). No effort was made by Petitioner's examiner to determine either the basis for the amount retained by Respondent or its composition. For example, he did not determine whether there were any "points" for service charges or discounts of any sort included in the retained sum. The examination was made solely on the basis of examining the business records of Respondent which did not reflect a breakdown of the retained amount. However, it could be deduced from various documents in individual investor files that certain amounts had been paid by someone unknown for title insurance premiums, recording fees and intangible taxes. The dates of mortgage delivery shown by Mr. Hunt in his worksheet were dates which he assumed were correct but he had not verified by any person the exact dates the mortgage was delivered to the investors. Neither could he ascertain from the records whether or not an investor had authorized Respondent to disburse funds at a particular time. The overcharges were determined in accordance with the formula set forth in Rule 3- 3.08, F.A.C., which is on a "gross proceeds" loan in which the borrower indicates that he wished to borrow a specified amount with all fees and charges to come out of the gross amount, thereby resulting in a reduced amount being provided to the borrower. The overcharges were computed without knowledge of whether the amount retained by the Respondent, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, included payment for state intangible tax, documentary stamps, and recording fees (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and 2). The overcharges set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 were unrebutted by Respondent and are deemed correct. In a transaction between Respondent and Cary G. Anderson, who applied for purchase of a mortgage on May 7, 1974, in the face amount of $3,500.00, the file relating to the transaction did not reflect the amount of any costs to be paid by Respondent in the matter, nor did it reveal a specific figure for brokerage fee or commission charged by Respondent. The file did reflect a bill for title insurance premium in the amount of $45.00 and recording fees in the amount off $22.25, $5.25 documentary stamps, and $7.00 for intangible tax. The amount of overcharge was $175.46. In another $2,500 transaction with Mr. Anderson, the amount remitted to the land developer was $2,075.00. The amount retained by Respondent was $425.00. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 establishes an overcharge from this transaction of $61.37. There was no copy of the mortgage in the file and therefore no information upon which to determine the payment of intangible taxes, documentary stamps and recording fees (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In a $5,000 transaction between Walter L. and Thelma T. Beach and Respondent with application for purchase mortgage dated July 30, 1974, a check was written on Respondent's escrow account to Kingsland Development in the amount of $4,100. The maximum allowable brokerage fee or commission under the law would have been $590.90. The amount retained by Respondent was $900.00. The mortgage indicated that documentary stamps in the amount of $7.50 and intangible tax of $10.00 were paid. Assuming that Respondent paid the intangible taxes, and documentary stamps, the excess fee charged according to calculation under Rule 3-3.08, was $281.60 (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4). In respect to the above three transactions Petitioner's examiner did not find closing statements in the file, nor did he go to the Florida title ledger or Attorney's ledger of Respondent's records. However, he had, at the outset of his investigation, asked Respondent to make available all records concerning the transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt).
Findings Of Fact On November 15, 1976, the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, through its president, Ervin Freeman, and its Secretary, Joan Dimon, executed a warranty deed conveying all right, title and interest, in and to certain property located at Northeast 135th Street and Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida, to Petitioner, Biscayne South, Inc. (hereafter Biscayne South), a Florida corporation. The warranty deed was recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, on November 16, 1976. On November 22, 1976, Biscayne South executed a mortgage deed in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, as a second mortgage on the same parcel of land to secure the payment of a promissory note in the principal sum of $1,500,000.00 which note was made by Outrigger Club, Inc., on the same date in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors. On November 22, 1976, Outrigger Club, Inc., as the "borrower" executed a future advance agreement with Fidelity Mortgage Investors as "lendor". The future advance agreement provides for the advancement of the sum of $1,500,000.00 to be secured by a prior mortgage dated October 27, 1972, executed by Outrigger Club, Inc., in favor of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, which mortgage provided for future advances. On November 22, 1976, a construction loan and disbursement agreement was executed by the parties thereto which provided that the $1,500,000.00 advance be paid to Miami National Bank as disbursement agent for the benefit of Biscayne South. On November 23, 1976, the mortgage deed and the future advance agreement were recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, and on that same date, the warranty deed was rerecorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida. Because the 1.5 million dollars was paid to Miami National Bank to be disbursed for future construction work on a draw-down basis, Outrigger Club, Inc., the grantor, never received the 1.5 million dollars. The warranty deed provides in paragraph 9 thereof that the conveyance is subject to: a second mortgage wherein the Outrigger Club Inc., is mortgagor and the trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, is mortgagee, dated the day of November, 1976, which said mortgage is given as additional collateral for payment of certain sums as provided under a settlement and release agreement between the Outrigger Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Lawrence F. Lee, Jr., and others as trustees of Fidelity Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust dated the 16th day of January, 1976. Neither the Department of Revenue nor Biscayne South have introduced evidence to establish that such a mortgage in fact exists or if it did, the value of such mortgage. The only mortgage in evidence is Respondent, Department of Revenue's Exhibit 2, which shows Biscayne South as mortgagor rather than the Outrigger Club, Inc., as recited in the warranty deed. However, the future advance agreement introduced as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, establishes the existence of a mortgage encumbering the subject property in which the Outrigger Club, Inc., is mortgagor and Fidelity Mortgage Investors is mortgagee. Such mortgage is dated October 27, 1972, and not dated with the month of November, 1976, as recited in paragraph 9 of the warranty deed. As recited in the future advance agreement, the mortgage of October 27, 1972, secured an indebtedness of $7,214,000.00. The mortgage provided that future advances could be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., not to exceed in the aggregate $16,500,000.00. The future advance agreement provides that an additional advance of $1,500,000.00 is to be made to Outrigger Club, Inc., thereby increasing the indebtedness represented by the October 27, 1972, mortgage to the aggregate sum of $8,715,000.00. In other words, the buyer of the property sought to borrow an additional 1.5 million dollars. The lender, in order to achieve priority of lien to secure its loan, treated the funding as an advance against a preexisting mortgage originally binding the seller, but then delivered the 1.5 million dollars directly to Miami National Bank for the benefit of the buyer. Accordingly, the seller never received the proceeds of the loan but rather participated in a "book transaction" for the benefit of the buyer and the lender.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Cline was licensed by the State of Florida as a mortgage broker and held license number HB 0017832 from January 13, 1986 through May 31, 1987. During this period of time, Respondent Cline was president and principal mortgage broker for MAC at the 4045 Tamiami Trail, Port Charlotte location. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. The Respondent Henderson was also licensed as a mortgage broker and held license number HA 0007460 from March 29, 19856 through June 19, 19889. Respondent Henderson conducted business through MAC as the corporation's vice president. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. In response to a consumer complaint, the Department initiated an examination of the books and records maintained at the Port Charlotte location of MAC on April 21, 1987. The conduct of the Respondents in their business dealings as mortgage brokers with MAC was investigated as part of the Department's review process. The examination and investigation involved the time period from March 1, 1986 to June 1, 1987. The written examination report prepared by the Department's financial examiner concludes that the Respondents, as officers and directors of MAC, financially compensated MAC employees who were not licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act for soliciting or negotiating mortgage loans. Six alleged mortgage solicitors were named in the report. The loan packages of seventeen mortgages, along with MAC's commission reports, were submitted as evidence to support the conclusion. A review of the documentation, along with a review of the commission checks and the testimony of Kimberly L. Johnson (nee Steed) revealed that the documents identified as "commission reports" were not indicators of commission funds received by the six employees named in the complaint. These employees were paid on a set salaried basis. They were hired by MAC to perform the ministerial acts of taking or typing applications for loans under the direction of a mortgage broker. The use of these employees' names in the commission reports incidentally shows which employee assisted in the completion of forms that resulted in commissions to the licensed brokers who completed the mortgage financing transactions. This interpretation of the "commission reports" is clearly supported by the first page of the reports, Petitioner's Exhibits 17 and Commission checks on the loans, were issued to the licensed mortgage brokers. The evidence demonstrates that Rebecca Henderson, who was one of the employees performing ministerial acts, on one occasion acted beyond her authority and "locked in" the interest rate for a mortgage applicant while she was completing the application. The Department did not present evidence to show that either Respondent Henderson or Respondent Cline had actual knowledge of the employee's actions. Neither licensee was the mortgage broker directing the employee at the time the incident occurred. During the course of the Department's examination, the conclusion was reached that MAC advertised in a newspaper that the corporation was a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." The Department alleges that MAC is not a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." At hearing, Kenneth Moulin, a former shareholder of MAC, testified that the goal of MAC was to become a bank. The corporation had money which was used to fund two mortgage loans with MAC as mortgagor. Petitioner's Exhibit 34, which was loan documentation on the residential loan application of William T. Martel and Lora A. Martel, names MAC as the lender. The documents also include FNMA forms used by FNMA lenders. The examination report concluded that MAC did not maintain records for a five-year period. The company started doing business in March 1986. Records were continuously maintained from MAC's inception. An advertisement placed in the newspaper, The Monday Sun, which was published on April 28, 1986, failed to include the phrase that MAC was a "licensed mortgage broker." The advertisement was placed by Respondent Henderson. In mitigation, it should be noted that Respondent Henderson had his mortgage brokerage license for less than one month and was new to the business as it is regulated by the Department. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that Respondent Cline was aware of the improper advertisement. Other documents provided which purported to be advertisements were not authenticated. They lacked mastheads or headings which could sufficiently identify the place, date or kind of publication. As part of the mortgage financing transactions involved in the sampling of mortgages conducted by the Department, MAC collected fees from applicants for the preparation of documents and reports. Specific fees were quoted to applicants and receipts were clearly marked to demonstrate that the fees were non-refundable to applicants. In its bookkeeping entries, MAC continuously failed to maintain ledger entries which showed that the fees had been assessed on each application, and that the monies had been used for the intended purposes for which they had been collected. In the sampling of mortgages reviewed by the Department, MAC retained money assessed for discount points. The money was not used to reduce the interest rate on mortgages closed, as represented to the borrowers by MAC. Instead, the mortgages were immediately assigned and the discount assessment was retained by MAC for its own, undisclosed use.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Henderson be issued a reprimand for failure to place the words "licensed mortgage broker" in the April 28, 1986 advertisement. That all other charges against the Respondents be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerkk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2202 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. See HO #2. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Document speaks for itself. Also, this is established as proper evidence under Section 494.051, Florida Statutes, so these findings are redundant. Rejected. Report speaks for itself. Accepted. Accepted. Reject the phrase "negotiation." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Reject the phrase "negotiate." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. 21.-24. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Kimberly L. Johnson is the same person as Kimberly L. Steed who has been licensed as a mortgage broker since September 29, 1986. 25.&26. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See above. This rendering of the testimony is rejected by the fact finder. Accepted. &29. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5 and HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #5. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Steed completed ministerial acts. See HO #5. Accept the first sentence. Reject the rest as contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. Repetitive. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Appli- cation fees were not set up as entrusted funds. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Repetitive. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Cline was not the mortgage broker on any of the transactions presented at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Respondent Cline's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. The records presented were found to be reliable when compared with the originals presented simultaneously by Respondent Henderson, although those were not officially placed in evidence. Rejected. See above. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Calls for legal conclusion. Rejected. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Irrelevant. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. However, the competency of the examiner was considered in the factual determinations made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Not listed as factual finding. As a Conclu- sion of Law, the Hearing Officer cannot rule on this matter. Respondent Henderson's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See preliminary matters. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Unable to rule on proposed finding. Insufficient. 7. Accepted. See HO #5. 8. Accepted. See HO #8. 9.&10. Reject. Insufficient. 11. Accepted. See HO #12. 12. Rejected. Insufficient. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. See HO #12. 15. Accepted. See HO #2. 16. Rejected. Conclusionary. 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. 19.-30. Not listed as factual findings. As Conclusions of Law, Hearing Officer cannot rule on these matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsie M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 33801 Ann Mitchell, Esquire GERALD DUNCAN ENGVALSON & MITCHELL Foxworthy Professional Building Suite 101 1601 Jackson Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Floyd G. Henderson Post Office Box 2875 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
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 Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: From approximately October of 1989, to February of 1990, Respondents were employed as telephone consultants by United Financial International, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UFI"), a Florida-based business owned by Laura Correa and Anita "Ann" Cuevas that offered to provide assistance to consumers seeking various types of loans, including mortgage loans. Respondents were not then, nor have they ever been, licensed by the Department as mortgage brokers in the State of Florida. Furthermore, at no time did UFI have a license or registration issued by the Department to operate as a mortgage broker, mortgage brokerage business, correspondent mortgage lender or mortgage lender, although it did have at least one employee during the period of Respondents' employment, telephone consultant John Archer, who possessed a Department-issued mortgage broker's license. As telephone consultants for UFI, Respondents answered and screened telephone calls placed by potential UFI clients. Among the callers Respondent Cook screened were Dudley Phipps and Arthur McCullough. Among the callers Respondent Jelich screened was Connie Wiscaver. Phipps, McCullough and Wiscaver were all interested in obtaining mortgage loans. While on the telephone with a potential client, Respondents, as a general rule, identified themselves by name, explained to the caller the services offered and fees charged by UFI, and obtained from the caller the following information, which they recorded on a form provided by their employer: the caller's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, social security number, employer, salary, financial standing, and credit history; and the type, amount and purpose of the loan sought by the caller. Respondents also typically asked what the caller hoped for in terms of interest rate, size of monthly payments and loan repayment schedule. In addition, they indicated what items the caller needed to send to UFI to complete the caller's loan application package. The representations that Respondents made during a typical telephone conversation with a potential client seeking a mortgage loan gave the impression that, if the caller submitted a complete loan application package along with the requisite loan application processing fee, and everything "checked out," Respondents would make the arrangements necessary for the caller to obtain the mortgage loan he or she wanted from one of the lenders with whom UFI had an established relationship. UFI management, in writing, instructed all of its telephone consultants, including Respondents, to incorporate the following in their presentation to potential clients and it randomly monitored the consultants' telephone conversations to make sure that these instructions were being followed: We Co-Broker loans. We are not lenders nor do we have a Funding Committee to evaluate the Loan Package after we receive it. It takes twenty one (21) to thirty (35) [sic] business days from the day we receive ALL the information to evaluate the package. We have an application Fee of $399.00. MANDATORY Please use these statements to increase your credibility and assertiveness with potential clients. The maximum life of the loan will be determined by the investor/lender. The interest rates will be fixed and vary between 12-18 percent. The application fee is non-refundable and the assessed fees to your loan are separate from the application fee. There will be a Brokerage fee of 1-5 percent assessed to your loan upon closing. To increase your potential, please make sure when your [sic] finishing with your potential client to ask them [sic] when they [sic] would like to obtain a loan. Also in your closing statements be sure to tell your client to Bill Recipient with our Federal Express/Express Mail Service to Guarantee overnight delivery. Be advised this is for the return of the Application Fee Only! The application istself [sic] is returned at the client's own expense. The client may pay the application fee by personal check; however, as the checks will be out-of-state it will take approximately (21) days for the check to clear which will hold up the clients [sic] processing. Therefore, we recommend a money order to expidite [sic] the process. We do not like to use regular mail for sending the money orders, we rather the client use our courier sevice [sic]. (see above) If you need assistance please do not hesitate to phone us at 1-800-729-5666. We want to help you secure the funds you require as soon as possible. We sincerely thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. In most cases, Respondents followed these instructions. As compensation for performing their duties as UFI telephone consultants, Respondents received a percentage (either 20 or 30 percent) of the non-refundable loan application processing fee submitted by each caller whose call they screened. In an effort to encourage a caller to submit the fee, Respondents sometimes told the caller that, based upon the preliminary information provided, the chances of the desired loan being approved "looked good." They never stated, however, that loan approval was "guaranteed."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of having violated Section 494.093(1), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing upon each of them an administrative fine of in the amount of $5,000.00 for having engaged in such wrongdoing. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1994.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, is charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Diko Investments, Inc. ("Diko") conducted business as a mortgage broker in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Dieter Kolberg ("Kolberg") was an officer, director, and acted as principal mortgage broker for Diko. Kolberg passed the mortgage broker's examination on May 28, 1985. Diko was issued a license as a mortgage broker with Kolberg as its principal broker on June 26, 1985 (license NO. HB-16568) Prior to May 28, 1985, Diko ran advertisements soliciting investors for mortgage opportunities. These ads included Kolberg's home telephone number. Prior to May 28, 1985, Kolberg/Diko entered into a business relationship with Michael D. Cirullo, a licensed mortgage broker, to "co-broke" mortgage transactions. Pursuant to their agreement, Cirullo represented the borrower/mortgagor while Kolberg obtained and represented the lender/mortgagee. Kolberg and Cirullo solicited and negotiated at least two loans prior to May 28, 1985. Kolberg acted in expectation of being paid as a mortgage broker. Cirullo remitted 50 percent of the commissions earned on these transactions to Diko. Diko stationery included the phrase "Licensed Mortgage Bankers." Neither Diko nor Kolberg has been licensed as a "mortgage banker." In August and September of 1985, investors, Marcel and Ida Barber, responded to a Diko advertisement which offered a 16 percent interest mortgage loan secured by prime residential real estate. The Barbers were interested in a safe, high interest yielding investment and requested more information from Diko. On September 23, 1985, Kolberg wrote to the Barbers to outline the following business policies of Diko: The first objective of the Diko lending program was "The Safety of the Investor's Capital." Any investment was to be secured by a mortgage on prime residential real estate clear of all liens with the exception of a first mortgage where a second mortgage would be given. Investors would be issued mortgagee title insurance to insure against loss due to defects in title to the mortgaged property. Investors would be issued fire and hazard insurance to cover any losses in the event of fire or storm. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid letter, the Barbers decided to invest $25,000 in a mortgage through Diko/Kolberg. This initial transaction proceeded satisfactorily and the objectives addressed in paragraph 10 above were met. In late December, 1985, the Barbers advised Kolberg that they would be willing to invest an additional $50,000 in early January, 1986. The Barbers expected the transaction to be handled in the same manner as their prior investment through Diko. After reviewing two or three loan proposals, the Barbers chose to invest in a loan to Tony Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. The loan was to be secured by a second mortgage on property at 713-717 "L" Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. The "L" Street property consisted of a 24-unit apartment complex and an adjacent laundry facility. Kolberg accompanied the Barbers to view the property. During discussions with the Barbers regarding the proposed investment, Kolberg made the following false material representations: That the property had a high occupancy; That rental payments were guaranteed or subsidized by a government program; That the asset-to-debt ratio for the property was acceptable; and That a proposed expansion of the laundry facility would further enhance the security of the loan. Financial statements of the borrower (Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc.) did not include all obligations against the "L" Street property. Diko/Kolberg did not give the Barbers an accurate or complete statement of the financial condition of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew the information on the statement was incomplete. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers the high rate of crime in the area which compromised the security of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew of the crime problem in the area. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that foreclosure proceedings had been instituted against the "L" Street property. Kolberg knew of the foreclosure action as well as the delinquency on other obligations. Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that he represented, as trustee, a Kolberg family company which would directly benefit from the Barber loan. The Barber loan would satisfy a mortgage held by Kolberg, as trustee, on the subject property, which mortgage was in default and in the process of foreclosure (the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure). Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that another mortgage held on the "L" Street property (David Marsh loan) was also in default. A subordination agreement was required to be executed by Marsh in order for the Barber/Medici loan to close. Marsh agreed to subordinate his mortgage position for approximately $3,000 in arrear payments. Marsh was owed approximately $125,000 but chose to subordinate because by doing so he was able to recoup a small amount of what he considered a lost investment. Kolberg knew of Marsh's situation and did not advise the Barbers. The Barber loan to Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. closed on January 18, 1986. The Barbers delivered a check for $53,000 payable to the title company chosen by Diko. Neither Diko nor Kolberg gave the title company, Manor Title, closing instructions to protect the lenders' interests. Kolberg did, however, instruct the title company to list expenses relating to the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure against the Medici loan. Proceeds from the closing, in the amount of $50,000 were paid to Kolberg, as trustee for "Ropet Anlagen," and deposited to an account by that name. The name "Ropet Anlagen" translates to "Ropet Investments." Kolberg handles all transactions for this Kolberg family company in the United States. (Kolberg has two sons, Robin and Peter, from a former marriage. The name "Ropet" may derive from their names.) Kolberg's former wife, Patricia Kolberg, owns an interest in Ropet Anlagen. Regular monthly payments were made by Kolberg to Patricia Kolberg on a Ropet Anlagen account. Many of the checks drawn on the Ropet Anlagen account were for personal expenses of Kolberg or his business. The first mortgage on the "L" Street property was 45 days overdue on January 13, 1986. Kolberg knew of this delinquency but did not advise the Barbers. To the contrary, Diko gave the Barbers an estoppel notice from a prior closing showing the first mortgage to be current. The first mortgagee ultimately foreclosed its mortgage and the Barbers lost their entire investment. The Barbers did not receive a fire and hazard insurance policy to cover losses in the event of fire or storm for the "L" Street property. The Barbers did not receive a mortgagee title insurance policy until March, 1986, by which time the first mortgage was further in default. Additionally, the mortgagee policy disclosed a financing statement and a collateral assignment of rents recorded prior to the Barbers' mortgage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller, enter a Final Order revoking the mortgage broker license issued to Dieter Kolberg and Diko Investments, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted; however, Kolberg's interest when financing with funds he controlled was only on a temporary, interim basis. The activities were conducted with Diko to receive a commission, therefore requiring a license. Paragraphs 7-15 are accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13. Paragraphs 17-18 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 14, 18, 22. Paragraphs 19-27 are accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Paragraphs 29-42 are accepted. The detail of Petitioner's finding is unnecessary to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 43-45 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraphs 48-52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 54 is accepted. Paragraph 55 is accepted to the extent found in findings of fact paragraphs 20, 21. Paragraphs 56-57 are accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 21. Paragraphs 59-63 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraphs 64-65 are accepted. Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondents: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Those portions of paragraph 2 which set forth Respondent's dates of testing and licensure are accepted, the balance is rejected as an erroneous conclusions of law. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight ofevidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 5 is rejected as the transaction was solicited with Kolberg's company, Diko, participating as a mortgage broker. Paragraph 6 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of theevidence and law. Paragraph 8 is accepted but does not mitigate, as a matter of law, Respondent's improper useage of the phrase. Paragraphs 9-11 are accepted; however the detail of thefindings is unnecessary and immaterial to the issues of thiscause. Paragraphs 12-14 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13 the balance is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraph 15 is rejected as unnecessary, relevant portions having previously been addressed. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraph 18 is rejected to the extent it qualifies Barber as a "Sophisticated Investor." The record is clear Mr. Barber was experienced in the laws of France; however, he relied on Kolberg completely as to both transactions which took place in Palm Beach. Moreover, Mr. Barber's useage and understanding of the English language was suspect. He could hardly be considered a "sophisticated investor" in light of the total circumstances. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 13, the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Moreover, it is found that the only times of capacity occupancy (which were limited) were due to temporary, transient, undesirable tenants who may have directly affected the crime problem. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraphs 23-24 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 25 is accepted but is unnecessary. The crime problem was there prior to closing and was undisclosed to Barber. That it worsened after closing only assured the disclosure should have been made. Paragraphs 26-35 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Many of the facts asserted here are based on testimony given by Kolberg. Respondents presume that testimony to be truthful, accurate, and candid. I found the opposite to be true. Paragraph 36 is accepted but does not mitigate Respondents' responsibilities to have completed the items at closing. Paragraph 37 is accepted with same proviso as above paragraph 36, ruling #22). Paragraphs 38-39 are rejected. See ruling #21. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted but see findings of fact paragraph 21 as to Kolberg's useage of Ropet funds for personal expenses. Paragraphs 42-43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence S. Krieger, Esquire 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Keith A. Seldin, Esquire 1340 U.S. Highway #1, Suite 106 Jupiter, Florida 33469 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Homesafe Mortgage Company (Homesafe), initially known as FMC Mortgage Company, a Florida corporation, was established on May 24, 1990, and has, since its inception, been owned by Orlando Monteagudo and his wife, Omaida. On September 16, 1990, Homesafe applied to respondent, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's application was approved, and its mortgage brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. A few days after Homesafe was licensed, the assets of another corporation wholly owned by Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, First Miami Investments Corporation (FMIC), discussed more fully infra, were transferred to it, and Homesafe assumed the mortgage business of FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle, and ceased doing business. On October 1, 1991, a new law, the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, became effective, which substantially changed the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and required businesses desirous of engaging in activities as mortgage lenders to be licensed as such. The Act also required such licensure for entities engaged in the business of servicing loans, if they proposed to service loans for more than four months, whereas previously no license was required for such activity. As a consequence of the amendments to chapter 494, Homesafe filed a timely application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, that section provided: (1)(a) Any person in good standing who holds an active registration pursuant to former s. 494.039 . . . or any person who acted solely as a mortgage servicer on September 30, 1991, is eligible to apply to the department for a mortgage lender's license and is eligible for licensure if the applicant: 1. For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, has engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both . . . . (Emphasis added) And, Section 494.001(17), Florida Statutes, defined a "person" to mean "an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other group, however organized." Also pertinent to an evaluation of Homesafe's application by the Department was Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, which provided: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as defined s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. By letter of April 13, 1992, the Department notified Homesafe of its intention to deny Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." The basis for the Department's denial was it conclusion that Homesafe had not "engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both" for "at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, as required by the "Saving Clause," and that the provisions of Rule 3D-40.202 were not applicable to Homesafe's circumstances, such that credit for FMIC's activities could be accorded Homesafe. Subsequently, the Department amended its notice of denial to include, as an additional basis for denial, its contention that Homesafe violated the provisions of Section 494.0072(2)(k), Florida Statutes, by acting as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license. Homesafe filed a timely request for formal hearing and disputed the bases upon which the Department proposed to deny its application. Homesafe's activities and those of its predecessor in interest, FMIC Orlando Monteagudo, the chief executive officer and co-owner of Homesafe, has personally held an active license as a mortgage broker since 1984, and has, through various entities, been active in the mortgage brokerage business since that date, without unfavorable incident. On July 20, 1989, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo became the sole owners of OJM Enterprises, Inc. (OJM), then known as The R & M Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, through a structured buy out from his former partners, with whom Monteagudo apparently felt strong dissatisfaction. OJM was the parent company of First Mortgage Corporation (FMMC) and First Miami Investment Corporation (FMIC), both Florida corporations. FMMC had been licensed as a mortgage brokerage business since at least March 14, 1986; however, neither OJM nor FMIC were ever so licensed. 2/ In September 1990, Monteagudo, out of a desire to further distance himself from his former associates, and on the advice of his accountant as to the best way to wrap up the affairs of OJM, FMMC and FMIC, contemplated the merger of OJM and FMMC into FMIC by September 30, 1990, and the transfer of their assets and mortgage brokerage business activities to Homesafe, which until that time had been largely inactive. In furtherance of such plan, Homesafe, as heretofore noted, on September 16, 1990, applied to the Department for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. In the interim, a merger agreement was executed on September 29, 1990, on behalf of FMMC, FMIC and The R & M Group, Inc., whereby the parties agreed to merge The R & M Group, Inc., and FMMC into FMIC. [Use of the name "The R & M Group, Inc.," OJM's former name, was a mistake and would lead to a delay in filing with the Secretary of State as discussed infra.] Under the agreement, which was to have been effective September 30, 1990, FMIC would be the surviving entity, and "all the estate, property, rights, privileges, powers, franchises, and interests of each of the . . . corporations" would be vested in FMIC as the surviving corporation, without further act or deed. Considering the restructuring that was occurring, the proof is persuasive that at least by October 1, 1990, and more probably at some unidentifiable date shortly prior thereto, Homesafe began to service mortgage loans on behalf of FMIC. Thereafter, by October 30, 1990, following approval of its application for a mortgage brokerage business license, Homesafe received the assets of FMIC and assumed the mortgage brokerage business that had previously been operated through the corporate group, now FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle and ceased doing business. Notwithstanding their efforts to effect a technical merger by September 30, 1990, the Secretary of State, by letter of January 4, 1991, rejected the merger agreement because The R & M Group, Inc., had changed its name on September 4, 1990, to OJM Enterprises, Inc. Accordingly, the parties were advised to correct their agreement to properly reflect the corporate parties if they desired the Secretary of State to accept such filing. Consequently, on January 14, 1991, the parties executed an amended merger agreement that properly reflected the corporate parties as FMMC, FMIC and OJM Enterprises, Inc. That agreement was duly filed with the Secretary of State on January 18, 1991, and FMIC became, technically, the surviving corporation that date. Under the terms of that agreement, as with the initial agreement, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, as the sole owners of OJM, became the sole owners of FMIC. The Department's Rule 3D-40.202 Pertinent to this case, Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, provides: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as deemed in s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. Here, the Department and Homesafe disagree as to the proper interpretation of the foregoing provision. The intent of the rule, according to the Department, was to permit those who were licensed as a mortgage brokerage business prior to the adoption of the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, but were not a corporate entity, to qualify under the "Saving Clause." Notably, under the amendments to chapter 494, only corporations are eligible for licensure as a mortgage lender. See Section 494.0061, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department interprets the rule to apply only when there has been an actual change in the form of the business entity, through incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, and does not consider the rule applicable where, as here, a mere transfer of assets occurred between corporations. Contrasted with the Department's interpretation, Homesafe contends that the provisions of the rule are broad enough to cover the situation where, as here, the mortgage brokerage business of one corporation is assumed by another corporation, as long as the ownership interests remain the same. Under such interpretation, Homesafe and FMIC, the surviving corporation, would be considered the same "person" for purposes of determining eligibility under the "Saving Clause," and Homesafe could be credited, if necessary, with the time periods FMIC or its merged parts operated as a mortgage brokerage business to satisfy the "12-month" standard of the "Saving Clause." While Homesafe's interpretation may be a permissible interpretation of Rule 3D-40.202, so is the Department's. Indeed, the Department's interpretation of the rule is consistent with the intent of the rule and the doctrine of noscitur a sociis often applied as an aid to statutory construction. Under such circumstances, and for the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, deference is accorded the agency's interpretation. Homesafe's activities subsequent to October 1, 1991 Pertinent to the Department's charge that Homesafe has acted as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license, the proof demonstrates that since October 1, 1991, Homesafe has made between 120-170 mortgage loans, sold those loans to investors, and thereafter serviced the majority of those loans. In response, Monteagudo retorts that Homesafe was entitled to licensure under the "Saving Clause," and that it was entitled to and needed to continue its business pending Department approval of its application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered approving Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 28th day of April 1993.
