Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The applicant Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is located at 4600 West Cypress Street, Tampa, Florida, and was established on May 31, 1974. Excluding its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice-President, the applicant has 25 officers with a combined total of 352 years of banking experience. The average age of the officers is 41, with an average of 15 years of banking experience. Six of the management team are past bank presidents. The applicant presently has two existing branch banking facilities. One is located 0.9 miles Southeast from the main office and one is located 8.6 miles Northwest of the main office. A third facility, acquired by merger, located 19.4 miles Southeast of the main facility, has been approved and was expected to open in April, 1979. As a result of the merger between Metropolitan and the American Guarantee Bank, the applicant now has 160 employees, The applicant has paid regular cash dividends to its stockholders since opening. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had total assets of over $187,000,000.00. Its loans to loanable funds ratio has been maintained at about 80 percent. That ratio was 76.7 percent as of February 14, 1979. The protestant stipulated at the hearing that the applicant had no problem meeting its liquidity needs. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an adjusted capital to assets ratio of 8.2 percent. Its net profit to asset ratio was .836 percent as of December 31, 1978. The establishment of the proposed branch is expected to have no significant effect upon future earnings of the applicant. It is anticipated that the slight loss after the first year of operation will not exceed two cents per share and that the branch will contribute significantly to earnings of the applicant after the first year. The applicant presently has approximately $1.4 million in deposits and $2.8 million invested in loans from residents and business people in the primary service area of the proposed branch bank. The name of the proposed facility is to be Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Carrollwood Branch Office. It is to be located on the southwest corner of Dale Mabry Highway and Ehrlich Road, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County, approximately 8.8 air miles from the main office. The property is presently owned by the applicant. No officer or employee of the applicant has an interest in the land purchased. The total cost of the land, building, furniture and fixtures and other fees is expected to amount to approximately $409,500.00. As of December 31, 1978, the applicant had an amount in excess of $1,391,500.00 to invest in bank premises. The proposed facility will offer full services, including checking and savings services, certificates of deposits, installment and commercial loans, VISA cards, safe deposit boxes, a 24-hour teller machine and Saturday banking. Additionally, the applicant intends to extend its main office services of international banking and trust services to the proposed branch. The building is to contain some 4,300 square feet and the drive-in area will contain some 1,050 square feet. Forty-three parking spaces will be provided. There will be five interior teller windows and four drive-in teller stations. The facility will also have a community room available for local citizens. The lending authority of the proposed branch manager will be $25,000.00 on an unsecured basis and $50,000.00 on a secured basis. Larger loans can be made available through consultation and approval of the parent bank. Long-term mortgage loans and acquisition and development loans will be available through the proposed branch. The proposed facility will have a branch manager and six staff (non- officer) members. The designated proposed branch manager is A. H. Vermeulen who has 22 years of experience in the banking industry and is currently a vice- president of the applicant. Mr. Vermuelen suffered a heart attack several weeks before the administrative hearing in this cause. It is expected that he will be able to resume his duties with the applicant. However, if he is unable to do so, the applicant has designated Charles Overholt as the proposed branch manager. Mr. Overholt has had 12 years of banking experience, has been an assistant branch manager of the Flagship Bank in St. Petersburg and is currently the applicant's vice-president in charge of the bookkeeping department. The applicant projects that total deposits at the proposed branch bank will be $5,000,00.00 at the end of the first year of operation, and $11,000,000.00 and $17,000,000.00 respectively at the end of the second and third years of operation. At the end of the first year of operation, the applicant anticipates a net loss of $22,100.00. Net profits of $211,300.00 and $459,500.00 are estimated for the end of the second and third years of operation. The site for the proposed branch banking facility is located on a main north/south traffic artery (North Dale Mabry Highway) and fronts on a major east/west traffic artery (Ehrlich Road). In selecting this site and designating the primary service area, the factors of residential development, population growth, traffic activity and flow, and existing financial institutions and services in the area were considered. Within the applicant's primary service area, there are presently two existing banks. The protestant Carrollwood is located 2.8 miles south of the applicant's site and the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace branch is located 2.9 miles south of the proposed site. By an Order dated February 20, 1979, the Office of the Comptroller granted authority to the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay to open a branch bank to be located approximately 1.5 miles south of the site. Other applications for branch banks in the area are pending and there are several savings and loan institutions in the area. While the population of Tampa has declined in recent years, there have been considerable increases in population in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County, including the applicant's primary service area. The largest part (76.63 percent) of the increase in the unincorporated areas have resulted from net migration, as opposed to natural increase. There has been a good balance of growth in both the working or labor age group and the group aged 65 and above. The per capita personal income figures for Hillsborough County are below the State average and are increasing somewhat slower that the State average. The comparative figures report for June 30, 1977, through June 30, 1978, show that the protestant increased its total deposits by a little over 30 percent, the Exchange Bank of Temple Terrace increased its total deposits by almost 25 percent, and the Sun Bank of Tampa Bay likewise increased deposits by a little over 21 percent. The average for increases in deposits for the County was 16.6 percent. Official state estimates of population for the primary service area are not available. The applicant estimates the 1978 population of the primary service area to be 20,800. A population of 25,000 is projected for 1980 and a population of 33,000 is projected for 1985. The population of this area has grown approximately 105 percent since the year 1970. The two existing banks in the area result in a population per bank of 10,400 persons. The Sun Bank's branch brings this down to 6,933 persons per banking facility. The national average population per banking office is 4,715 and the Florida average is 8,086. The figures above for the primary service area do not take into account savings and loan institutions in the area nor customers served by banks outside the primary service area. The primary service area is mainly a "bedroom," residential community at the present time, with little commercial or industrial development. There is no significant concentration of employment in the area. The makeup of the populace is primarily upper middle class. Most of the residential development has occurred West of North Dale Mabry Highway. There are between 8,600 and 10,500 new residential units planned in the subdivisions located within the primary service area and, as of the date of the subject application, some 1,900 had been completed. Developers and landowners feel that commercial development in the area will naturally follow the residents development. At least two land developers in the primary service area have had difficulty obtaining financing in the form of large acquisition and development loans and construction loans from existing banks within the primary service area. The applicant is in substantial compliance with all state and federal laws affecting its operations. In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 120.57(1)(a)(12), conclusions of law and a recommendation are not included in this Report. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Riley Davis William S. Lyman Taylor, Brion, Buker and Green Assistant General Counsel P. O. Box 1796 Office of the Comptroller Tallahassee, Florida 32302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert W. Perkins and Richard B. Collins Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis Michaels, Sheffield, Perkins, The Capitol Collins and Vickers Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Post Office Box 10069 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Frederick L. Roberts (Respondent) was a licensed Florida mortgage broker, holding license number MB 316324569. In November 1993, a friend of the Respondent, Alan Petzold, introduced Tami Aaronson to him. Ms. Aaronson owned property in Maryland and was interested in securing a mortgage on the Maryland property to provide funding for a Florida home for herself and her son, Jarrett. According to Ms. Aaronson, Mr. Petzold is the father of a minor son, Jarrett Aaronson. The Respondent believed that such was the case at the time he met the family. The Respondent met several times with Ms. Aaronson. The Respondent gave a “Flagship Mortgage Company” business car to Ms. Aaronson. The business card had the Respondent’s name printed on it. The Respondent had been briefly employed by Flagship Mortgage Company, but apparently was not so employed at the time he met Ms. Aaronson. Frederick L. Roberts (Respondent) received check number 0170, dated November 22, 1993, from Tami Aaronson as “Custodian for Jarrett Aaronson” in the amount of three thousand dollars. The notation on the check states that it is for “refinancing.” Ms. Aaronson believed the check was payment for services the Respondent would render in obtaining refinancing of the Maryland property. There was no written agreement between the Respondent and Ms. Aaronson, or between the Respondent and Mr. Petzold. The Respondent completed no written documentation related to the Aaronson transaction. The Respondent did not place the Aaronson deposit into a segregated escrow account. The Respondent did not record the Aaronson deposit into an escrow transaction journal. During the period he held the Aaronson funds, the Respondent worked on unrelated business, and traveled to China for about thirty days. The Respondent performed no work on behalf of Ms. Aaronson, Mr. Petzold, or Jarrett Aaronson. There is no evidence that the Respondent intended to perform any work on behalf of Aaronson/Petzold. The Respondent asserted that he asked for a three thousand dollar “deposit” as a means of discouraging the couple from asking for his assistance. The assertion is not credible. The Respondent asserts that the three thousand dollars he received from Ms. Aaronson was a deposit against travel expenses he would incur during his examination of the property in Maryland. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. In the spring of 1994, the Respondent received a telephone call from Ms. Aaronson. The Respondent asserts that he believed Ms. Aaronson to have called him from a mental hospital. For whatever reason, at that time he determined that he no longer wanted to be involved in the Aaronson/Petzold situation. Shortly after receiving the Aaronson phone call in spring 1994, the Respondent also received a call from a Department of Banking and Finance investigator, apparently looking into a complaint received from Ms. Aaronson. The Respondent thereafter contacted Mr. Petzold and made arrangements to return the funds to him. According to a notarized statement dated May 9, 1994, the Respondent returned the three thousand dollars to Jarrett R. Aaronson and Alan C. Petzold. The Respondent testified that the money had been returned on May 8, 1994 to Mr. Petzold. The Respondent offered into evidence a document dated May 8, 1994, purporting to be a receipt received from Mr. Petzold for return of the funds. The signature is not notarized. The Respondent did not return the Aaronson deposit to Tami Aaronson. There is no evidence that Ms. Aaronson authorized the return of the three thousand dollars to Mr. Petzold. There is no evidence that Ms. Aaronson authorized the return of funds to Jarrett. Ms. Aaronson has not received any part of the three thousand dollars allegedly refunded. There is no evidence that the funds have been redeposited into the minor child’s custodial account. The Respondent asserts that he was not acting as a mortgage broker and was merely investigating the property to determine whether the Aaronson property could be used as a source of funds for the purchase of Florida property. The Respondent asserts that had a refinancing situation arisen, he would have referred Ms. Aaronson to another licensed person who would assist in the actual refinancing. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. The Respondent asserts that in the spring of 1994 he had reason to believe that Ms. Aaronson had been hospitalized in a mental facility, and therefore he returned the funds to Mr. Petzold. The rationale for the failure to return the funds to the appropriate party is not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order suspending the mortgage broker license held by Frederick L. Roberts until the following conditions are met: Payment to Tami Aaronson of $3,000 plus appropriate interest calculated from November 22, 1993. Payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. After compliance with the above conditions, the license suspension shall be lifted, and a two-year probationary period shall begin RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Clyde C. Caillouet, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103 Pensacola, Florida 32503 Michael W. Carlson, Esquire Carlton Fields Ward Emmanuel Smith & Cutler, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Hon. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Applicant, Protestant, and Department submitted Proposed Findings of Fact pursuant to Rule 3C-9.11, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact are accepted except where they might specifically conflict with the Findings stated in the Hearing Officer's Report or where they may constitute conclusions of law, with the following exceptions: The last sentence of Proposed Finding Number 8 is rejected to the extent that it constitutes a legal argument as opposed to a finding of ultimate fact. Proposed Finding Number 11 is rejected in that it constitutes legal argument as opposed to a finding of ultimate fact. Proposed Finding Number 15 is rejected in that it constitutes a conclusion of law. The Protestant's Proposed Findings of Fact are accepted except where they might specifically conflict with the Findings stated in the Hearing Officer's Report or where they may constitute conclusions of law, with the following exceptions: The first sentence of Proposed Finding Number 6 is rejected in that it is speculative, constitutes legal argument, and is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The last sentence of Proposed Finding Number 6 is rejected in that it constitutes a conclusion of law as to the reason why the Protestant's bank charter was granted. The first, third, fourth and fifth sentences of Proposed Finding Number 10 are rejected, as they constitute legal arguments based upon restatement of testimony, as opposed to findings of ultimate fact. The second sentence of Proposed Finding Number 11 is rejected in that it constitutes a conclusion of law. Proposed Finding Number 14 is rejected in that it consists of argumentative references to testimony and not findings of ultimate fact. Proposed Finding Number 24 is rejected in that it constitutes legal argument and conclusions of law rather than findings of ultimate fact. The first sentence of Proposed Finding Number 26 is rejected in that it constitutes a conclusion of law. The second sentence of Proposed Finding Number 26 is rejected in that it is repetitious and constitutes a conclusion of law. The Fourth sentence of Proposed Finding Number 26 is rejected in that it constitutes a conclusion of law. Proposed Finding Number 27 is rejected in that it constitutes a conclusion of law. Proposed Finding Number 28 is rejected in that it constitutes legal argument rather than a finding of ultimate fact. The last sentence of Proposed Finding Number 31 is rejected in that it constitutes legal argument and a conclusion of law. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact are accepted except where they might specifically conflict with the Findings of the Hearing Officer's Report or where they may constitute conclusions of law.
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 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:
