The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to honor a subpoena issued by Petitioner as is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, ASPEC, Inc., is a Florida Corporation engaged in the business of Mortgage Brokerage in Florida. Shanker S. Agarwal is President of ASPEC, Inc. Mr. Agarwal has been licensed by the Department as a Mortgage Broker since May 24, 1985 and currently holds License No. HB-0016435 which expired, by its terms, August 31, 1986. On February 14, 1986, the Department received a consumer complaint about ASPEC, Inc., and pursuant to its investigation of Respondent's brokerage activities, the Department sent a certified letter to ASPEC, Inc., on March 21, 1986, to the attention of President Agarwal requesting that an appointment be scheduled with its Area Financial Manager, Division of Finance, Paul Richman. The returned service of the referenced letter was postmarked April 14, 1986. President Agarwal, or an officer from Respondent failed to schedule an appointment with Paul Richman as requested. On May 22, 1986, the Department served Respondent a subpoena duces tecum on May 23, 1986, by its then Financial Examiner Analyst I, Kevin J.C. Gonzales. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp 9-10.) The subpoena issued to President Agarwal requested that the custodian of records, an officer, director, employee or member of ASPEC, Inc. appear before Paul Richman on May 30, 1986, at 9:00 a.m. at the Department's Miami Office and produce all books, papers and documents (of ASPEC, Inc.) from its inception to April 29, 1986, so that the Department could determine ASPEC's compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. President Agarwal, or a representative on behalf of ASPEC, Inc., failed to appear at the date and time specified on the subpoena, or thereafter, at the designated place to produce the requested documents. Respondent has challenged on constitutional and other procedural grounds, the Department's authority to conduct an investigation of Respondent as a licensee under the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Respondent's challenges were determined to be either beyond the authority of the Hearing Officer or lacked merit, and rulings to this effec were made during the course of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the Mortgage Brokers License No. HB-0016435 issued to Respondent for a period of (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles J. Gopman Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Shanker S. Agarwal, President ASPEC, INC 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Ronald P. Glantz, Esquire 320 Southeast 9th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a mortgage broker's license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Application and Reasons for Denial Applicant is a 52-year-old former mortgage broker who resides in Dade County, Florida. He was first licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida in 1959. His license remained in effect until it expired in 1976. He reapplied for registration as a mortgage broker in December, 1976. In June, 1977, the Department denied his application despite Applicant's attempt to withdraw his application in January, 1977. (P-1, R-6, R-7.) On March 18, 1981, Applicant filed another application with the Department for a license to act as a mortgage broker. That application is the subject of this proceeding. The Department seeks to deny it on grounds that the Applicant is insolvent; that he had a final judgment entered against him in a civil action on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit; and that he lacks the requisite competence, honesty, truthfulness, and integrity to act as a mortgage broker in Florida. II. Insolvency Applicant is insolvent and deeply in debt. His insolvency arises out of his association with a company known as Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation ("Guardian Mortgage"), a mortgage brokerage firm operating in Dade County. He was secretary/treasurer and one of several mortgage brokers who worked for that company. Prior to its going out of business in 1976, it and its several brokers were accused of numerous financial misdealings. Between 1974 and 1980, over 31 civil lawsuits were filed against Applicant concerning financial transactions in which he was involved; most of the transactions occurred in connection with his employment at Guardian Mortgage. As a result of these lawsuits, and his failure to defend against them (on advice of counsel) , final judgments in excess of $500,000 have been entered against him and remain unpaid. Applicant has not attempted to pay off any of these judgments, although his codefendant, Archie Struhl, has made efforts to satisfy some of them. (Testimony of Lipsitt, Haber; R-4, R-5, R-6.) After Guardian Mortgage ceased operations, Applicant ran a hotel and orange grove operation in Central America. His wife was a preschool teacher. He has not earned any money beyond that necessary to meet his basic needs. (Testimony of Haber.) In the past, the Department has ordinarily refused to issue mortgage broker licenses to applicants who are insolvent. The reason for this policy is that the public "could be injured if a man [mortgage broker] did not have sufficient monies to back him up . . ." Tr. 144.) The only exception to this policy of denying applications on grounds of insolvency is when an applicant has shown that he is making an honest effort to satisfy and pay off the outstanding judgments. (Testimony of Ehrlich.) III. Civil Judgment of Fraud Entered Against Applicant In April, 1977, a civil action was filed by Murray Ritter against three codefendants: Applicant, Archie Struhl, and Guardian Mortgage. (Circuit Court of Dade County, Case No. 77-10849, Division II.) Count II of the complaint alleged that the defendants committed fraud by failing to invest $10,000 in a first mortgage and, instead, converted the money to their own use. On July 20, 1977, the circuit court, upon plaintiff's motion, entered a Final Summary Judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the three defendants. The judgment awarded plaintiff $10,000 in compensatory damages, $5,000 in punitive damages, and court costs of $63, for a total of $15,063. (R-5, R-6.) IV. Experience, Honesty, Truthfulness, Integrity, Competency, and Background of Applicant Applicant was a licensed mortgage broker for many years. The Department acknowledges that his experience in mortgage financing is adequate. (Testimony of Ehrlich.) Applicant denies that he ever engaged in wrongdoing as a mortgage broker, that he knew of improprieties occurring at Guardian Mortgage, or participated in a cover-up. He denies that he ever misrepresented facts or acted dishonestly as a mortgage broker. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Applicant lacks honesty, truthfulness, or integrity. (Testimony of Haber.) However, Applicant has not demonstrated that he has the requisite background and competence to engage in financial transactions involving mortgage financing. Civil judgments were entered (by the Circuit Court of Dade County) against Applicant in the following cases, each of which involved mortgage financing, unsecured loan transactions, or real estate investments negotiated by Applicant: Irvings S. Philipson, et al. v. Venus Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 74-1320. Dr. Seymour Z. Beiser, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No. 76-24374. Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami v. Brenda Alexander, et al., Case No. 75-16230. City National Bank of Miami v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No. 75-39444. Leon Earler, et al. v. Venus Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 76-22138. Jesus Suarez v. Leonard Gordon, et al., Case No. 76-26381. John J. Nussman, et al. v. Melvin J. Haber, et al., Case No. 76-30569 (12). County National Bank of North Miami Beach v. Sid Shane, et al., Case No. 77-27909 (14). Herman Mintzer, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, Case No. 76-16842. Melvin Waldorf, et al. v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, Case No. 76-16344. Florence Margen v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et al., Case No 76-39412. Biscayne Bank v. Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, et el., Case No. 76-39857 (8). Harry Jolkower, et al. v. Archie Struhl, et al., Case No. 77-19172. Hilliard Avrutis v. Archie Struhl, et al., Case No. 32494. Julius Wladawsky, et al. v. Melvin J. Haber, et al., Case No. 76-22554 (14). Taken as a whole, these judgments support an inference that Applicant lacks the competence and background necessary to act as a responsible mortgage broker in Florida. 2/ (Testimony of Ehrlich; R-4, R-5.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application for a mortgage broker's license be DENIED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of January, 1982.
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Alan Kaye was a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida and respondent KNAC of Miami Realty, Inc. was a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida. Respondent Alan Kaye was an officer of and qualifying broker for respondent KNAC of Miami Realty, Inc. Respondents secured a 90-day listing from Christina Trivino for the sale of her residence located at 271 N.W. 148th Street in North Miami, Florida. When that listing expired, respondents obtained an extension. On or about November 28, 1987, respondents solicited and obtained a sales contract for the purchase and sale of the Trivino property. In connection therewith, the purchasers, Marie C. Eduoard and Henry S. Roy, entrusted to the respondents a total earnest money deposit of $6,200.00, and the respondents placed the deposit in the escrow account of respondent KNAC of Miami Realty, Inc. In accordance with the provisions of the sales contract, the purchasers were to pay a total of $62,000 for the property, and assume the existing first mortgage in the principal amount of approximately $45,000. While the contract initially called for the closing to occur on or before February 15, 1988, Ms. Trivino was very anxious to close earlier due to some problems she was having with the Internal Revenue Service. Accordingly, the closing date was changed to occur on or before January 15, 1988. Among the terms of the sales contract was a provision that conditioned the sale upon the purchasers' assumption of the first mortgage in the principal amount of approximately $45,000. Paragraph 8 of the contract provided that If, after diligent effort on the part of the purchaser, the purchaser is unable to obtain said first mortgage, all monies deposited hereunder shall be refunded to purchaser and parties herewith agree to enter into a Release on Deposit Receipt; and this contract shall be declared null and void. At some point in time, it became known to the respondents and the seller Trivino that the bank which held the first mortgage on the subject property would not authorize an assumption of the mortgage by the purchasers without either a $3,000 paydown of the mortgage amount or the completion of qualifying papers by the purchasers. The testimony from Ms. Trivino and Mr. Kaye differ widely with regard to the dates upon which and the manner in which they became aware of this problem, as well as their communications with each other thereafter. Ms. Trivino testified that in early January, 1988, she became concerned about the status of the transaction and began making repeated calls to the respondents which calls were never returned. She admits talking with Todd Kaye, respondent's son, in the respondents' offices on January 5, 1988, whereupon the mortgage problem was discussed. At that time, needing "desperately" to sell the house, Ms. Trivino offered to hold a second mortgage for the purchasers in the amount of approximately $3,000.00. She states that she also spoke with the officials at the bank regarding the mortgage. In spite of numerous unreturned telephone calls, Ms. Trivino did not hear anything further from Mr. Kaye until his letter dated January 29, 1988. That letter informed Ms. Trivino of the mortgage situation and indicated that "there is some doubt whether or not the Buyer has this extra money." Mr. Kaye further informed Ms. Trivino that "for all practical purposes, since the closing has not taken place, due to no one (sic) fault, the contract is void." Ms. Trivino then had her employer, a licensed real estate broker, write a letter dated February 3, 1988, to Mr. Kaye requesting Mr. Kaye to retain the $6,200 deposit pending a determination of the matter. She asserts that she made numerous further attempts to contact Mr. Kaye regarding this matter, but he would not return her calls. According to Mr. Kaye, he delivered the sales contract to a title company in early December, 1987, with the requests that the title company do a title check, that the mortgage holder be contacted, and that a mortgage assumption package for the buyers be obtained. Mr. Kaye states that he was thereafter informed by the title company that the mortgage holder would not allow an assumption of the mortgage without a paydown of about $3,000. Mr. Kaye states that he communicated to the buyers the problem with the mortgage assumption and also communicated Ms. Trivino's offer to take a second mortgage for $3,000. According to Mr. Kaye, the buyers did not want a second mortgage and did not feel that they could qualify for an assumption of the first mortgage because they were unemployed at the time. Instead, they wanted a return of their $6,200 deposit. Mr. Kaye felt that the sales contract had become void because of the inability of the buyers to assume the first mortgage, as provided in Paragraph 8 of the sales contract. Accordingly, he returned the $6,200 deposit to the buyers on January 10, 1988. He did not request Ms. Trivino's consent nor did he notify Ms. Trivino that he had refunded the deposit to the buyers because he felt that Ms. Trivino was fully aware that "the deal was dead."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondents be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 15th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4062 The parties' proposed findings of fact have been fully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner 8. The evidence demonstrates that the amount of the deposit was $6,200 in lieu of $6,000. 13. Partially rejected based upon the seller's testimony that she spoke to Todd Kaye in respondent's offices on or about January 5, 1988. 15. Accepted with the addition of the fact that the respondent communicated this offer to the buyers. Respondent 4. The evidence demonstrates that the amount of the deposit was $6,200 in lieu of $6,000. 8. The date of "early December" is rejected as not established by competent, substantial evidence. 10. Rejected as not established by competent, substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Manuel M. Arvesu, Esquire 100 North Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33132 Darlene Keller, Executive Director DPR, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing grade on the September 28, 1993, mortgage broker examination.
Findings Of Fact On September 28, 1993, Petitioner took the mortgage broker examination. To pass the examination, a candidate must receive a minimum score of 75. Petitioner was advised that she had achieved a score of only 74. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the examination questions and her answers thereto, and she did so on October 15, 1993. She questioned her failure to receive credit for ten of her answers on that examination and provided written explanation for why she believed her answers to those questions were correct. Petitioner's written challenges and explanations regarding her answers to those ten questions were reviewed by a subject matter expert and by a psychometrician employed by National Assessment Institute, the company responsible for creating and administering the Florida mortgage broker examination. Both experts determined that Petitioner's answers to those ten questions were incorrect and that her explanations therefor were without merit. Petitioner was advised that she was entitled to no extra credit for her answers on that examination, and this proceeding ensued. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner admitted and agreed that the answers which she had chosen for questions numbered 2, 20, and 23 of the examination were incorrect. Petitioner, accordingly, withdrew her challenge to the grading of her answers to those three questions and proceeded forward regarding her answers to seven questions only. Petitioner chose answer "D" to question numbered one. The correct answer was "A". Petitioner was not able to correctly answer that question because she was unfamiliar with a term used in the question. That term is found in the "Fannie Mae" guidelines. Petitioner's answer is not correct. Petitioner chose answer "A" to question numbered 19, but the correct answer is "C". Petitioner's suggestion that both answers are correct is not persuasive. Petitioner chose only part of the correct answer, and multiple choice "C" contained all of the information necessary for a correct answer. Partial credit is not given for partial answers on the mortgage broker examination; rather, to receive credit for an answer, a candidate must choose the answer which completely responds to the question. Since Petitioner's chosen answer was an incomplete answer, her answer was not correct. Petitioner thought that "C" was the correct answer to question numbered 33, but only answer "A" was correct. That basic question regarding title insurance and the correct answer were taken from the Handbook of the Florida Association of Mortgage Brokers, one of the required reference materials. Petitioner chose answer "D" for question numbered 35, but only answer "C" was correct. As with question numbered 33, Petitioner based her answer on her experience as a real estate broker in New York. The question and answer, however, can be found in the "Fannie Mae" guidelines. As her answer to question numbered 36, Petitioner chose answer "A". However, the only correct answer was answer "C". Petitioner's answer involved a different type of insurance than the kind involved in the question. Petitioner believed that choice "B" was the correct answer to question numbered 59. However, the correct answer was choice "D". The question tested Petitioner's understanding of the definitions found in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's choice of a more generic term was incorrect. As her answer to question numbered 98, Petitioner chose "C", but only "B" was a correct answer. This question used the same term found in question numbered one. Since Petitioner did not understand that term, which is found in the "Fannie Mae" guidelines, she did not know the correct answer to either question numbered one or question numbered 98. Petitioner is not entitled to extra credit for her answers to any of the questions challenged in this proceeding. Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on the September 28, 1993, mortgage broker examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the September 28, 1993, mortgage broker examination and denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 31st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4a have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, and 39 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 8, 10, 12-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, and 41 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Helena Weisfeld Chirico c/o Robert Weisfeld 2739 Parkview Drive Hallandale, Florida 33009 Helena Weisfeld Chirico Post Office Box 800 Hunter, New York 12442 John D. O'Neill, Esquire Assistant General Counsel The Comptroller's Office 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether petitioners are entitled to payment from the mortgage brokerage guaranty fund, and if so, in what amounts. A further issue is in what order of priority the claims should be paid. Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings filed in this cause, the following findings of fact are deter- mined:
Findings Of Fact Respondent Anglickis is a Florida real estate broker holding license number 0001869. Respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0169476. The address of both respondents is 102 East Leland Heights Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida. (P-26.) Respondent Anglickis is president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., and Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. All three companies are located at the same address. (Testimony of Campbell; P-5, P-26.) On March 12, 1979, Louis G. Hofstetter and his wife, Dale I. Hofstetter, both residents of North Carolina, entered into a real estate contract with American Heritage Builders, Inc. Respondent Anglickis signed on behalf of American Hertiage Inc. Under the terms of the contract, the Hofstetters were to Purchase a lot and home to be constructed thereon by American Heritage Builders, Inc. The purchase price included the transfer of a lot owned by the Hofstetters and a cash down payment. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-1, P-3, P-26.) The contract estimated closing costs to be approximately $2,000". It also contained conflicting conditions relative to the time within which any mortgage financing must be obtained. . . . In the event PURCHASER'S application for mortgage financing is not approved within sixty (60) days from date hereof, all monies receipted for, less cost of credit report, will be returned to the PURCHASER and this contract will be null and void. * * * FOR MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS: This contract of Purchase and Sale shall be void unless Purchaser's application for Mortgage has been approved by a bank or financial institution and Purchaser has executed the Mortgage Acceptance Form, within four (3) [sic] months from date of this Contract of Purchase. 2/ (P-1, R-1.) On March 12, 1979, the Hofstetters signed a mortgage loan application and submitted it to Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. (P-26.) On May 5, 1979, 45 days after accepting the application, Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., submitted the Hofstetters' mortgage loan application to First Federal of DeSoto. (Testimony of Archer.) On June 15, 1979 (95 days after receiving the loan application), Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters indicating that the local lender needed additional information on their stock holdings, and enclosing a document titled "Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges". This document estimated that closing costs would be $2,754--$754 more than the estimate contained in the real estate contract. (P-5.) On June 22, 1979, the Hofstetters protested the increased closing cost, requested clarification, and provided the requested information on their stock holdings. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-26.) On July 7, 1979, the Hofstetters notified Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., that the increased closing cost deviated from the contract, that they therefore considered the contract cancelled and wanted the deposit refunded. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-8.) On June 29, 1979, Robert Campbell, vice-president of Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters and explained the meaning of each component of the closing cost. (P-7.) On July 17, 1979, respondent, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote a letter to the Hofstetters expressing his position: * * * Let me try and put the contract in the proper perspective for you. It's our contention that you have reluctantly provided to us the information that would enable us to make a proper and expedient application to the lending institution and that much of this information has been confused, causing further delays. In accordance with the contract, you were to make this application as quickly and as expediently as Possible so that the contract would not expire. However, this is not the case. Thus, my immediate Position is that the contract should be expired and all of the deposits, including the cash and the lot which we gave you $6,995.00 trade for, would be forfeited as agreed upon liquidated damages. He ended by outlining other alternatives and repeating his asserted right to cancel the transaction and retain the Hofstetters' deposit as liquidated damages * * * First, the lending institution must make a quick determination based on the facts that they have that you are either eligible or not eligible for a mortgage loan as outlined in our contract. If they still do not have enough information, we have no other choice then but to ask you to pay the increase which we have experienced at this time (price list enclosed), and in paying that increase we would be willing to take another 90 days to try and secure a loan for you. If your mortgage loan is denied, your deposit less the costs of processing your mortgage application will be returned to you. Of course, the third choice is the choice I hope we do not have to take, and that is cancelling this transaction and retaining your monies as agreed upon liquidated damages. (P-9.) Mr. Hofstetter responded on July 22, 1979. He denied that he was responsible for any delay or confusion in the Processing of their loan application; asserted that 93 days had elapsed from the submission of their loan application and Mr. Campbell's letter of June 15, 1979, asking for additional financial information; and informed respondent Anglickis that the contract had already expired by virtue of the clause allowing 60 days to obtain mortgage financing. He then, again, asked that his deposit be returned. (P-10.) On July 30, 1979, respondent Anglickis, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote to the Hofstetters indicating that the loan had been approved 3/ and he was prepared to build their home at the contract price. He then addressed Mr. Hofstetter's July 22, 1979, denial of any responsibility for delay in obtaining the mortgage loan: I have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1979 and I understand we certainly have a difference of opinion as to whose fault the delay has been caused by. However, I don't think it's time to look at whose fault the delay might be, since it all has worked out to your satisfaction. The mortgage has been approved and we are ready to build. I expect you will now sign the mortgage papers when receipted for so that we may begin construction immediately. (P-11.) On August 6, 1979, the Hofstetters restated to respondent Anglickis that they were not prepared to go ahead with construction, that the contract became null and void by operation of the 60-day mortgage financing clause, and that the deposit should be immediately returned. (P-12.) On August 31, 1979, respondent Anglickis notified the Hofstetters that, pursuant to the contract conditions, he was retaining their full deposit, including cash and the real estate lot for which they received a $6,995 credit toward the purchase price. The full down payment totaled $10,350. (P-1, P-13.) On September 8, 1979, the Hofstetters replied: We cannot understand why you continue to ignore the provisions of the second sentence of Paragraph Two on the reverse side of Contract No. 1997, dated 12 March 1979. You say you intend to invoke the Provisions of the third sentence of this para- graph, but this sentence is Predicated on the assumption that the mortgage would be approved within sixty (60) days. The mortgage was not approved until late July (your letter of 17 July 1979 indicated it was not yet approved, and your letter of 30 July 1979 stated that it had now been approved), more than 120 days past the date of the original contract. Our Position is as Previously stated on several occasions: on 12 May 1979 the contract became null and void, and on that date our deposit should have been refunded. Any action other than this is illegal, according to the terms of the contract. We are due return of our down payment, plus interest, from 12 May 1979. (P-24.) On October 3, 1979, First Federal of DeSoto, which had continued to process the Hofstetter loan application, issued a commitment approving the requested loan. On October 10, 1979, the Hofstetters rejected the mortgage loan. (P-26.) Subsequently, the Hofstetters wrote letters to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and the Lehigh Chamber of Commerce complaining of respondent Anglickis' retention of their deposit; they, then, retained an attorney and filed a civil action against respondents in the circuit court of Lee County. That action was settled out-of-court. There is no evidence whatsoever to support respondent Anglickis' assertion to the Hofstetters that they were dilatory or responsible for confusion or delay in obtaining the necessary mortgage financing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., be dismissed; That respondent Richard A. Anglickis be administratively fined $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oaklnd Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Cline was licensed by the State of Florida as a mortgage broker and held license number HB 0017832 from January 13, 1986 through May 31, 1987. During this period of time, Respondent Cline was president and principal mortgage broker for MAC at the 4045 Tamiami Trail, Port Charlotte location. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. The Respondent Henderson was also licensed as a mortgage broker and held license number HA 0007460 from March 29, 19856 through June 19, 19889. Respondent Henderson conducted business through MAC as the corporation's vice president. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. In response to a consumer complaint, the Department initiated an examination of the books and records maintained at the Port Charlotte location of MAC on April 21, 1987. The conduct of the Respondents in their business dealings as mortgage brokers with MAC was investigated as part of the Department's review process. The examination and investigation involved the time period from March 1, 1986 to June 1, 1987. The written examination report prepared by the Department's financial examiner concludes that the Respondents, as officers and directors of MAC, financially compensated MAC employees who were not licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act for soliciting or negotiating mortgage loans. Six alleged mortgage solicitors were named in the report. The loan packages of seventeen mortgages, along with MAC's commission reports, were submitted as evidence to support the conclusion. A review of the documentation, along with a review of the commission checks and the testimony of Kimberly L. Johnson (nee Steed) revealed that the documents identified as "commission reports" were not indicators of commission funds received by the six employees named in the complaint. These employees were paid on a set salaried basis. They were hired by MAC to perform the ministerial acts of taking or typing applications for loans under the direction of a mortgage broker. The use of these employees' names in the commission reports incidentally shows which employee assisted in the completion of forms that resulted in commissions to the licensed brokers who completed the mortgage financing transactions. This interpretation of the "commission reports" is clearly supported by the first page of the reports, Petitioner's Exhibits 17 and Commission checks on the loans, were issued to the licensed mortgage brokers. The evidence demonstrates that Rebecca Henderson, who was one of the employees performing ministerial acts, on one occasion acted beyond her authority and "locked in" the interest rate for a mortgage applicant while she was completing the application. The Department did not present evidence to show that either Respondent Henderson or Respondent Cline had actual knowledge of the employee's actions. Neither licensee was the mortgage broker directing the employee at the time the incident occurred. During the course of the Department's examination, the conclusion was reached that MAC advertised in a newspaper that the corporation was a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." The Department alleges that MAC is not a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." At hearing, Kenneth Moulin, a former shareholder of MAC, testified that the goal of MAC was to become a bank. The corporation had money which was used to fund two mortgage loans with MAC as mortgagor. Petitioner's Exhibit 34, which was loan documentation on the residential loan application of William T. Martel and Lora A. Martel, names MAC as the lender. The documents also include FNMA forms used by FNMA lenders. The examination report concluded that MAC did not maintain records for a five-year period. The company started doing business in March 1986. Records were continuously maintained from MAC's inception. An advertisement placed in the newspaper, The Monday Sun, which was published on April 28, 1986, failed to include the phrase that MAC was a "licensed mortgage broker." The advertisement was placed by Respondent Henderson. In mitigation, it should be noted that Respondent Henderson had his mortgage brokerage license for less than one month and was new to the business as it is regulated by the Department. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that Respondent Cline was aware of the improper advertisement. Other documents provided which purported to be advertisements were not authenticated. They lacked mastheads or headings which could sufficiently identify the place, date or kind of publication. As part of the mortgage financing transactions involved in the sampling of mortgages conducted by the Department, MAC collected fees from applicants for the preparation of documents and reports. Specific fees were quoted to applicants and receipts were clearly marked to demonstrate that the fees were non-refundable to applicants. In its bookkeeping entries, MAC continuously failed to maintain ledger entries which showed that the fees had been assessed on each application, and that the monies had been used for the intended purposes for which they had been collected. In the sampling of mortgages reviewed by the Department, MAC retained money assessed for discount points. The money was not used to reduce the interest rate on mortgages closed, as represented to the borrowers by MAC. Instead, the mortgages were immediately assigned and the discount assessment was retained by MAC for its own, undisclosed use.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Henderson be issued a reprimand for failure to place the words "licensed mortgage broker" in the April 28, 1986 advertisement. That all other charges against the Respondents be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerkk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2202 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. See HO #2. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Document speaks for itself. Also, this is established as proper evidence under Section 494.051, Florida Statutes, so these findings are redundant. Rejected. Report speaks for itself. Accepted. Accepted. Reject the phrase "negotiation." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Reject the phrase "negotiate." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. 21.-24. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Kimberly L. Johnson is the same person as Kimberly L. Steed who has been licensed as a mortgage broker since September 29, 1986. 25.&26. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See above. This rendering of the testimony is rejected by the fact finder. Accepted. &29. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5 and HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #5. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Steed completed ministerial acts. See HO #5. Accept the first sentence. Reject the rest as contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. Repetitive. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Appli- cation fees were not set up as entrusted funds. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Repetitive. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Cline was not the mortgage broker on any of the transactions presented at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Respondent Cline's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. The records presented were found to be reliable when compared with the originals presented simultaneously by Respondent Henderson, although those were not officially placed in evidence. Rejected. See above. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Calls for legal conclusion. Rejected. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Irrelevant. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. However, the competency of the examiner was considered in the factual determinations made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Not listed as factual finding. As a Conclu- sion of Law, the Hearing Officer cannot rule on this matter. Respondent Henderson's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See preliminary matters. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Unable to rule on proposed finding. Insufficient. 7. Accepted. See HO #5. 8. Accepted. See HO #8. 9.&10. Reject. Insufficient. 11. Accepted. See HO #12. 12. Rejected. Insufficient. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. See HO #12. 15. Accepted. See HO #2. 16. Rejected. Conclusionary. 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. 19.-30. Not listed as factual findings. As Conclusions of Law, Hearing Officer cannot rule on these matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsie M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 33801 Ann Mitchell, Esquire GERALD DUNCAN ENGVALSON & MITCHELL Foxworthy Professional Building Suite 101 1601 Jackson Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Floyd G. Henderson Post Office Box 2875 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides in Riverwoods, Illinois. He has four children, and is married to Sharon Wheat-Hester. Petitioner received his undergraduate degree from Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Petitioner also received a master’s degree and doctorate degree in theology from Share-A- Prayer and Word Theological School in Whitewater, Wisconsin. Petitioner is currently employed as the director of a ministry called Marketplace Movement Network. The ministry provides advice to businesses on Chritian business ethics. In that regard, Petitioner has published one book on the subject of Christian ethics in business. Petitioner is also the President and shareholder of Hester International, Inc., a Florida Corporation that since 1995, provides mortgage brokerage services in the State of Illinois and several other states. The corporation’s principal office is located in Illinois. The business has an established client list and referral list. Additionally, Petitioner is currently licensed as a mortgage broker in the Illinois, California, North Carolina and Hawaii. He has not had any disciplinary action taken against him in those states. On January 25, 1996, prior to the present license application at issue here, Petitioner sought licensure as a mortgage broker in Florida with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Respondent’s predecessor agency. On the 1996 application Petitioner answered “no” to a question that asked whether he had ever had a license revoked. Petitioner’s 1996 application was denied for a material misrepresentation or omission. Petitioner did not challenge the 1996 denial. On February 16, 2004, also prior to the present application, Petitioner again applied for a mortgage broker license. On this application, question number six asked: Have you had a license, or the equivalent, to practice any profession or occupation denied, revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against which involved fraud, dishonest dealing, or any other act of moral turpitude? Yes No A “Yes” answer to question six required the applicant to attach details, provide a copy of allegations, and also supply documentation of the final disposition of the case. In response to question number six, Petitioner appeared to have marked both the answers “yes” and “no”, but then circled “yes.” On the second page of the application, Petitioner explained his answer to question number six, stating that he had had a real estate license ten years ago and that he had been involved with a dispute for $2,500 and lost the case. The explanation further stated that Petitioner was moving to Illinois at the time, so he voluntarily surrendered his license. On April 1, 2004, without investigating the facts to refresh his memory, Petitioner provided the requested signed letter of explanation. Subsequently, he withdrew his February application because he did not have time to deal with the ongoing questions the agency had regarding his application. Around July 13, 2004, after discussing the February 2004 application with Respondent, Petitioner submitted a revised Application for Licensure as a Mortgage Broker in the State of Florida. In response to question six, Petitioner marked “no” based on his memory that his real estate agent’s license had been “voluntarily surrendered.” Petitioner also submitted character reference letters. Additionally, Petitioner discussed with Respondent any proof of rehabilitation since the “voluntary surrender” of his real estate license. On page two of the July application, Petitioner wrote that his “only blemish” was a voluntary surrender of a real estate license in 1992. Petitioner stated, “[t]his was ‘not’ an act of moral turpitude or fraud.” In a deficiency letter dated July 28, 2004, the Office requested additional information from the Petitioner, including a signed statement explaining his side of the occurrence. On September 30, 2004, the Office received the same statement the Petitioner had previously forwarded to the Office for his February 2004 application. Petitioner again did not avail himself of the opportunity to discover the true facts surrounding the claimed surrender of his license. In the second paragraph of this explanatory letter Petitioner stated that the disciplinary action that led to surrender of his real estate license arose out of a transaction involving one of his customers who rented property to a third- party renter. Petitioner stated that the rental transaction between his customer and the third-party renter occurred in the lobby of Petitioner’s office without his knowledge or help. According to Petitioner’s, somewhat confusing, explanatory letter, the customer did not have the right to rent the house, but collected $2,500 from the renter and then left the state. Later, Petitioner discovered that the customer had closed in escrow and gained temporary occupancy of the home, thereby enabling the customer to ostensibly rent the home. Petitioner further explained that the renter sued him for the $2,500 and prevailed because the transaction took place in Petitioner’s lobby. Petitioner stated he lost the case because his attorney, Scott Hester (also his brother), was unavailable to make the closing argument and Petitioner had to do his own summation. In fact, Petitioner’s brother never represented Petitioner in the renter’s case because he did not have time to undertake the case. Petitioner did not supply the names of the people referenced in the letter because he did not remember them. As will be seen, at the time of the explanatory letter, Petitioner’s memory of the facts surrounding his license surrender is, at best, faulty. On April 19, 2005, the Office issued its Denial Letter, denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker. As grounds for denial under Section 494.041(2)(c), (g), (i) and (q), Florida Statutes, the letter stated in relevant part: The Office’s background investigation and information you provided revealed the following: You answered Question #6 on your application as “no”, when it asks if you have had a license, or the equivalent, to practice any profession or occupation denied, revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against which involved fraud, dishonest dealing, or any other act of moral turpitude. On or about May 7, 1996, the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, denied your application for a license as a mortgage broker for making a material misstatement of fact on their application. On or about December 8, 1992, after the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate conducted an investigation, you surrendered your license with that agency and entered into a written agreement stating that you agreed to have your license revoked. Accordingly, the Real Estate Commission did revoke your license in their meeting of January 19, 1993 effective December 8, 1992. The Investigative Report attached to the Final Order to revoke reveals that you were sued for dishonest conduct and subsequently, on March 25, 1992, ordered to pay Johannes Fruhwirt $7,800 plus post- judgment interest. This order was by the County Court of Broward County as a result of a Final Judgment, Case #9103333 CC53 and a Writ of Execution. The investigation revealed that Hester left the State of Florida without leaving word of his whereabouts. Apparently, that judgment was never satisfied. On May 14, 1991 you promised to pay $3000 to Leonard Schoenfeld when closing occurred on a home Mr. Schoenfeld was purchasing. Closing occurred shortly afterward, and you have never made that payment. On or about July 17, 1995, the State of Illinois received an Application Form to Operate as a Residential Mortgage Licensee in the name of Hester International, Inc. on which you were listed as 50% owner. You signed the “Verification” portion of that form and your signature was notarized on June 20, 1995 indicating that you verified as being true all data entered onto that form. However, you responded “N/A” to Part III, Question #10 which asks that you list all licenses which you or your firm have applied for and been denied and/or any and all licenses issued to you or your firm which were subsequently suspended or revoked. You therefore failed to disclose the revocation of your license with the Florida Division of Real Estate that occurred in 1992. On the same application filed with the State of Illinois, in response to Part III, question 19(m), you did not disclose that a judgment had been entered against you on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. The renewal for Hester International Inc., with the State of Illinois, states under the section labeled, “Averment of License” in item “s” that the licensee will advise the Commissioner in writing of any changes to the information submitted on the most recent application for license within 30 days of said change. The State of Illinois reports that you never disclosed the denial of a mortgage broker license in 1996 with the State of Florida . (i) On November 18, 2004 in an electronic filing for corporation reinstatement for Hester International, Inc., you certified that as Registered Agent you maintained an office at 6278 N. Federal Highway, Suite #305 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In fact, that address is a mail drop leased to one Carl Thames, CPA. The signage required by Section 48.091(2), Florida Statutes, does not appear, and you and Hester International, Inc. are unknown at this location. In pre-hearing interrogatories, the Office asked Petitioner to provide more information about the transaction involving the transaction that had led to the revocation of his real estate license, including the identity of those individuals. Even though the importance of accuracy was apparent since Petitioner was now in litigation, Petitioner, again, without investigating the facts and relying solely on his improving memory answered the interrogatories posed to him. In his answers, Petitioner identified the “customer” who had collected the money as Leonard Schoenfeld and the “renter” as Johannes Fruhwirt. Petitioner went on, in his answers, to describe the transaction with Mr. Schoenfeld and Mr. Fruhwirt. This description is similar to the explanation offered in the explanatory letters supplied for his earlier applications. In his response to Requests for Admissions, Petitioner denied that in May of 1991 he acted as a real estate broker in the auction of a home located at 14884 Equestrian Way in Wellington, Palm Beach County, Florida, and that he had been unable to deliver a mortgage at an agreed interest rate. Petitioner also denied that he had agreed to pay $3,000 for closing costs as deferred interest payments. Despite these denials, Petitioner admitted that he had signed an agreement to pay $3,000 to Mr. Schoenfeld. Petitioner explained these denials by claiming that these funds were never due because the agreement to pay $3,000 was contingent on closing. Since the real estate deal never closed, the $3,000 was never due. At his July 15, 2005, deposition, Petitioner essentially reaffirmed the inaccurate account of events in his interrogatory answers. At the deposition, Petitioner was asked to review documents related to the Schoenfeld transaction. Those documents included: (1) a copy of the May 14, 1991, agreement wherein he agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld $3,000, (2) a handwritten letter wherein he agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld the money that he owed him, and (3) a warranty deed on property purchased by Mr. Schoenfeld. When he was shown the May 14, 1991, agreement, Respondent testified that he did not know why he would have agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld $3,000. Even when he was shown the deed on the property and even though he had notarized the signatures on that deed, Petitioner maintained that the deal never closed and he never owed the $3000. At hearing, Petitioner’s various and growing explanations during discovery significantly differ from his testimony. Petitioner testified that throughout his various explanations he had confused and combined several individuals into one transaction. Even though he knew that the true facts of these transactions were important to consideration of his application and in answering discovery in this case, Petitioner did not make any real attempt to refresh his memory of these transactions until shortly before the hearing. In fact, the Schoenfeld and Fruhwirt transactions involved different real estate deals and had nothing to do with each other. The Schoenfeld transaction occurred in 1991 and involved the sale of real property located at 14884 Equestrian Way in Wellington, Florida. Mr. Schoenfeld was Petitioner’s customer. As part of the transaction, Petitioner guaranteed he could get a mortgage at a certain rate. After failing to get Mr. Schoenfeld a mortgage at a certain rate, Petitioner agreed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld $3,000 upon closing. When Petitioner failed to pay Mr. Schoenfeld the $3,000 on closing, he asked Mr. Schoenfeld if he could make payments of $200 a month. In a letter to Mr.Schoenfeld, Petitioner confirmed that he would pay Mr. Schoenfeld the amount that was owed. Petitioner made two payments and then stopped making payments. In a letter dated July 1, 1991, Mr. Schoenfeld complained about his dealings with Petitioner to the Division of Real Estate. A few days before Mr. Schoenfeld’s deposition on July 25, 2005, Petitioner paid Mr. Schoenfeld $2,600. Mr. Schoenfeld accepted the payment since the money was still owed to him. However, the payment had been delayed for 14 years and did not include interest for those years. Petitioner testified that he made the payment because, once he remembered the details of the transaction, he felt morally obligated to pay Mr. Schoenfeld what he had promised. However, fulfillment of this obligation also occurred with this litigation pending and after denials that any money was due Mr. Schoenfeld. In short, Petitioner did not pay Mr. Schoenfeld the money that was due him for 14 years until Petitioner was forced to acknowledge the true facts of the Schoenfeld transaction in this litigation. The Fruhwirt transaction involved a man named Mark Ritter who was a client of Petitioner. Mr. Fruhwirt met with Mark Ritter at a house he wanted to rent. Eventually, Mr. Ritter sent him to Petitioner to complete a lease agreement. Mr. Ritter did not know about leases and said Petitioner was a friend whose real estate office could set up the lease contract. Mr. Fruhwirt met Petitioner at his real estate office. Since it was lunchtime, they went to a nearby Burger King to finalize the lease. While at Burger King, Mr. Fruhwirt paid Petitioner $2,850 on the lease. Petitioner’s testified that he did not receive any money from Mr. Fruhwirt and did not accompany Mr. Fruhwirt to Burger King. Petitioner testified that Mr. Ritter and Mr. Fruhwirt met in his lobby and both went to Burger King to finalize the lease arrangement. However, given Petitioner’s past faulty memory, Petitioner’s testimony is not credible. At some point, Mr. Fruhwirt moved into the house. Subsequently, Mr. Fruhwirt received a letter from an attorney representing the real owner demanding that he vacate the premises. Mr. Fruhwirt then discovered that Mr. Ritter was not the owner and had to hire an attorney to sort out his continued occupancy of the property. Eventually Mr. Fruwhirt bought this property. Mr. Fruhwirt sued Petitioner and the real estate office for the recovery of the $2,850 he had paid to rent the house. Petitioner was found liable, but the real estate office was found not liable because the transaction happened off its premises at Burger King. On March 25, 1992, the Broward County Court entered a judgment of $7,800 against Petitioner, finding that Petitioner had “breached his duty to disclose that Mark Ritter was not the owner of the involved property.” After Mr. Fruhwirt obtained the judgment, Petitioner declared bankruptcy. Mr. Fruhwirt pursued an adversary action in Petitioner’s bankruptcy proceedings. Subsequently, the Bankruptcy Court cited “11 U.S.C. 523 A(2) and 11 U.S.C. 523 A(4)” and refused to discharge the judgment debt. The Bankruptcy Court’s Order refusing to discharge the debt clearly conflicts with Dr. Hester’s repeated implications and statements that this debt was discharged in bankruptcy. Unable to collect from Petitioner, Mr. Fruhwirt filed with the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund. The fund paid $2,850 to Mr. Fruhwirt and suspended Petitioner’s license. Mr. Fruhwirt used the money to defray some of his legal expenses. To date, Petitioner has not paid Mr. Fruhwirt any money on the judgment. The Fruwhirt transaction led to the revocation of Petitioner’s real estate license and, on January 19, 1993, the Florida Real Estate Commission entered a final order revoking Petitioner’s real estate license. Despite Petitioner’s testimony that he never received a copy of the documents, the certificate of service for the final order indicates it was sent to Petitioner at 1101 Hidden Cove, Salem, SC 29676, which was the address where Petitioner was living at that time. Again, Petitioner’s testimony is not credible. The Final Order referenced a December 8, 1992, agreement in which Petitioner agreed that his license would be revoked. In the December 8, 1992 agreement, entitled “Affidavit for the Voluntary Surrender of License, Registration, Certificate/Permit for Revocation,” signed by Petitioner, he agreed to the revocation of his license and to not apply for a new real estate license for ten years from the effective date of revocation. In particular, the December 8, 1992 agreement stated, “[t]he effective date of the revocation shall be upon signing this document.” Notwithstanding the clear language revoking the license, at the hearing, Petitioner maintained that because he had voluntarily surrendered his license, he did not believe his license had been revoked. In referring to the agreement he had signed, he testified that the agreement said, “that my license will be inactive, not revoked” and denied ever seeing the other documents revoking his license. This testimony is simply not credible and demonstrates Petitioner’s propensity to see or remember things in a way that is more flattering to him, irrespective of reality. The affidavit signed by Petitioner clearly stated that Petitioner’s license would be and was revoked upon signing. In 1995, Hester International applied to operate as a residential mortgage licensee in Illinois. The application identified Petitioner as the vice president and Sharon Hester as the president. Page one of the application indicated the application had to be executed “by two officers or all directors if the applicant/licensee is a corporation.” The application was signed by Petitioner and his wife. Petitioner did not disclose to Illinois that a judgment had been entered against him in Florida or that his real estate license had been revoked or suspended. Question 10 in Part III of the Application asked: “LIST ALL LICENSES WHICH YOU OR YOUR FIRM HAVE APPLIED FOR AND BEEN DENIED AND/OR ANY AND ALL LICENSES ISSUED TO YOU OR YOUR FIRM WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SUSPENDED OR REVOKED.” Petitioner responded “N/A.” (Id.). Question 19(m) in Part III of the Application asked: UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I(WE) STATE THAT ALL OF THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY (OUR) KNOWLEDGE AND FURTHER STATE THAT AS THE APPLICANT/LICENSEE: . . . (m) Has not committed a crime against the law of this State, any other state or the United States, involving moral turpitude, fraudulent or dishonest dealing, and that no final judgment has been entered against it in a civil action upon grounds of fraud, misrepresentation or deceit which has not previously been reported to the Commissioner. The evidence did not demonstrate that the emphasized clauses in question 10 or the “I(WE)” in 19(m) direct such questions to individuals signing the application. One reasonable interpretation of the language is that the questions are directed to the business entity applying for the license. In short, the I(WE) language is simply language in a form meant to cover multiple types of business entities ranging from sale proprietorships to corporations. Therefore, Petitioner was not required by Illinois to disclose matters which involved him personally. To date, Illinois has not filed any disciplinary action against Petitioner or Hester International. Thus, the failure to disclose personal judgments or license actions to Illinois in a corporate application for licensure does not support a finding of dishonesty or denial of Respondent’s application at issue here. At some point, Hester International’s corporate status had to be reinstated in Florida. Petitioner reinstated the company’s corporate status in November of 2004. Petitioner filed as registered agent at 6278 North Federal Highway #305, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Petitioner had not lived at this address for some 15 years, but had lived there for seven years with his girlfriend. The evidence showed that Petitioner simply forgot to change the registered agent’s address and was not acting dishonestly. Once he discovered his mistake, Petitioner amended his filing to reflect the appropriate address. Again, these facts do not form a basis to deny Petitioner’s license application. Finally, Petitioner testified that until Spring 2005, he and his wife were 50/50 owners of Hester International, Inc., as reflected on the application and license renewals in Illinois. In September 2004, Ms. Hester submitted Hester International, Inc.’s application for Florida licensure as a mortgage broker business. The Hester International business application was submitted after the Office had denied Petitioner’s license application in 1996 and was scrutinizing his July 2004 application. In the application, Ms. Hester identified herself as 100 percent owner of the Hester International. Petitioner did review this application, but he intentionally did not take part in its filing. The purported change in ownership was not adequately explained at hearing and appears to have been done in order to forestall any problems with licensure of the corporation due to Petitioner’s participation in the corporation. While the change of ownership is troubling, given Petitioner’s history, and also adds to the evidence that Petitioner is less than forthright in his memory and past business dealings, the change of ownership for the corporation’s licensure application does not, by itself, support a denial of Petitioner’s application. On the other hand, too many inconsistencies exist between Petitioner’s hearing testimony and his earlier accounts to conclude that Respondent can be trusted to hold a mortgage brokerage license. At worst, the evidence shows that Petitioner is not truthful or acts with integrity. At best, the evidence shows that Respondent has the ability to convince himself of facts that do not quite fit the truth, but are more flattering to him. Under either scenario, Petitioner’s appreciation of honesty, truthfulness and integrity are suspect. Neither Petitioner’s letters supporting his good character, nor his success in his ministry demonstrates sufficient rehabilitation to overcome what appears to be long-time evasive behavior. Therefore, Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Scott Hester, Esquire 13843 Longs Landing Road East Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Gregg Morton, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0376 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued Mortgage Broker License No. 3082 on September 3, 1974 by Petitioner. Respondent conducted certain transactions under its Mortgage Broker License during the period from September, 1973 until April, 1974. Respondent found client investors who had funds which they wished to invest in mortgages which would pay a greater return in interest than the average land mortgage. The transactions involved the purchase of a promissory note from a land development corporation secured by a mortgage deed on land ostensibly owned by the developer, in which the latter reserved the right and was authorized to convey the premises to a purchaser under an installment land contract subject to the lien of the mortgage. The deed further provided that the developer would deliver to a bank as an escrow agent a copy of any such agreement for deed and a quitclaim deed which would be held in escrow unless a default was established under the mortgage deed. What the investor would receive in such cases would be the developer's assignment of an agreement for deed collateralized by the mortgage deed. The issuance of these high interest notes were for the purpose of enabling the development company to make certain improvements on the land which they were obligated to do under sales contracts. In the transactions in question, Respondent dealt through Financial Resources Corporation of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida to which he remitted the investors funds, less an amount retained for fees or commissions. The land developer/borrower would then issue the note and mortgage in the face amount of the total investment made by the investor. The detailed procedure was that when an investor inquired concerning such mortgages, Respondent would determine from Financial Resources Corporation if any were available. It was the practice of Respondent's President then to look at the land development, determine if, in fact, the land was in development and had streets and the like, and to read pertinent documents concerning the development. He would then proceed to accept the full sum of the investment from the investor pursuant to an agreement by which the investor, in consideration of the stated sum, would authorize Respondent to use its best efforts to secure collateralized promissory notes at a minimum percentage of interest on the declining balance with principal and interest payable monthly if held to maturity. Respondent would then deposit the investor's check, usually on the same day as received, and then in several days send a notice to Financial Resources Corporation authorizing it to prepare and execute a self-amortizing monthly principal and interest promissory note with quitclaim deed in the amount of the investment, together with a check representing the proceeds of the Investment less the Respondent's fee or commission, and a sum for intangible tax on the transaction. Financial would thereafter return to Respondent a copy of the note and mortgage in exchange for the funds remitted. The recorded mortgages would be sent to Respondent within a month or so thereafter. Respondent had no agreements in writing with the land developer, nor with Financial Resources Corporation. Respondent claimed that its fees for services were set by Financial Resources Corporation which usually amounted to about 12 percent of the face amount of the investment, but which was sometimes more and frequently less than that authorized under the applicable statutes and regulations. Respondent did not maintain an escrow bank account and all funds received from investors were deposited into the corporate bank account of the firm. Respondent's agreements with investors set no specific term or period of time in which the secured promissory notes were to be obtained although its president would customarily tell investors that it would take some time for the transaction to be consummated, and that they could not expect to receive the recorded mortgages right away (testimony of Mr. Montague, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-10). Respondent discontinued transactions as described above in April, 1974 because he was dissatisfied with the business. He had been informed that certain lands under some of the mortgages had not been sold until after the mortgage had been executed and that this was in violation of State law. In the fall of that year, he received a memorandum from the State Comptroller on the subject of escrow accounts, dated October 11, 1974, which warned mortgage brokers in the state concerning the practice of remitting investors' funds to land developers in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note (testimony of Mr. Montague, Respondent's Exhibit 9). In 1975,a financial examiner from Petitioner's office was sent to the office of Respondent to examine his books and records. Pursuant to that examination, it was determined that Respondent had committed various violations of Chapter 494, F.S. on certain transactions. The following findings of fact are made with respect to the transactions in question: Allegation: That Respondent took and received deposits of money from Robert E. Creighton, Hazel R. Hardesty, J. Wilfred Caron, Rose A. Hoadley, Margaret A. Gregory and Willard A. Kotthaus, in the regular course of business, and failed to immediately place such said funds in an escrow or trust account as required by Section 494.05(1) , F.S. As heretofore stated, the Respondent did not maintain an escrow trust account with respect to any of the above-stated transactions. The above- mentioned individuals had authorized Respondent to disburse the funds immediately upon receipt (testimony of Mr. Montague, Supplemented by Exhibits 3- 8). Allegation: Respondent failed to maintain adequate records in violation of Section 494.06(3), F.S., in that its files contained no written agreements on transactions with Della W. Shaw, Lantana Sheet Metal and A.C. Inc., and another transaction with Lantana Sheet Metal. The agreement between Della Shaw and Respondent, although not present in Respondent's file at the time of examination of its records by Petitioner's representative, had been executed on October 15, 1975, and presently is contained in the records of the Respondent. It had been taken out temporarily by one of Respondent's associates who also had Della Shaw as a client. Respondent had entered into two transactions with the trustee of the pension fund and profit sharing plan of Lantana Sheet Metal, one for ten thousand dollars from the pension fund and one for three thousand dollars from the profit sharing plan. At the time of these investments there were written contracts which were executed by the parties. The books and records of both the pension fund and the profit sharing fund were maintained at Respondent's office by a firm which administered both plans. The agreements pertaining to the Lantana transactions were requested and withdrawn from Respondent's files by the trustee of the Lantana funds. Consequently, they did not appear in the records of the corporation at the time of examination by Petitioner's representative (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 4; Respondent's Exhibit 10). Allegation: Respondent failed on numerous loan purchase agreements to establish the term for which the agreement was to remain in force before the return of the deposit for nonper- formance could be required by the investor, in violation of Chapter 3-3.06, F.A.C. The transactions in question did not involve applications for mortgage loan, but agreements to purchase secured promissory notes. Respondent's clients were investors/purchasers, not borrowers (testimony of Mr. Montague; Petitioner's Exh. 2-10). Allegation: Respondent charged and accepted fees or commissions in excess of the maximum allowable in violation of Section 494.08(4), F.S., and Chapter 3-3.08(3) and (4), F.A.C., on trans- actions involving Rosa Eichelberger, overcharge of $10.90, Lantana Sheet Metal, overcharge of $62.60; Lantana Sheet Metal, overcharge of $10.91; Rose A. Hoadley, overcharge of $9.10; and Margaret A. Gregory, overcharge of $9.10.
