The Issue The issue is whether respondent acted as a mortgage lender within the meaning of Section 494.001(3), Florida Statutes, and thus is subject to Division licensure requirements.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division), is a state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Florida Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Act which is codified in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Division regulates mortgage lenders and requires such persons or entities to secure a license. Respondent, White Pine Resouces, Inc. (WPR), is a Florida corporation formed in March 1986. Its sole shareholder is John R. Grass, a Pensacola attorney. Although the corporation was originally formed for a number of purposes, its primary activity is the real estate investment business. It holds no licenses issued by, or registrations with, the Division. WPR's current business address is 358-C West Nine Mile Road, Pensacola, Florida. WPR's principal source of money is Grass, or his professional association, who loan money to the corporation. In some cases, the money is used to acquire parcels of property for resale, make necessary repairs or improvements, and then provide owner financing to the buyer. In other cases, WPR loans money to persons needing to make improvements to their homes or rental property and takes back a second mortgage from the borrower. These types of transactions, which occurred during the years 1992-95, are found in documents offered in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1-5. Respondent has also stipulated that several other transactions of this nature occurred during that same period of time. In every case, WPR was investing its own money or that of its principal. In 1992, a Division examiner analyst noted the following listing in the Yellow Pages section of the Pensacola telephone directory under the heading of "Mortgages": White Pine Resources Having Trouble With Financing Residential & Land Fast Service on 1st Mortgages The advertisement also contained respondent's street address and telephone number. In the 1993-94 telephone directory, WPR carried the following advertisement under the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pine Resources Specialists! Bad Credit - We Can Help Vacant Land Loans In the 1995-96 telephone directory, WPR placed the following advertisement in the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pines Resources A Private Investor Not a Mortgage Broker Specialists! We Can Help Vacant Land Loans Although the Division first noted one of WPR's Yellow Page advertisements in 1992, for some reason it did not conduct a formal investigation of respondent's activities until February 28, 1994. On that day, an examiner analyst made an unannounced visit to respondent's office for the purpose of inspecting its records to determine if WPR was acting as a mortgage lender. However, WPR's principal, John R. Grass, was not in the office, and the analyst simply left his business card and a message for Grass to contact him. The next morning, Grass telephoned the analyst's supervisor and advised him that since WPR was merely a private investor, and not a mortgage lender, it was not subject to the Division's regulation, and hence it would not provide copies of its records. A subpoena duces tecum was then issued by the Division, records were produced pursuant to the subpoena, and this controversy ensued. The parties agree, however, that this action was not prompted by complaints from consumers or other persons having dealings with WPR. The record indicates that a mortgage lender differs from a private investor in several material respects. An important distinction is that a private investor uses its own funds rather than those of another party. Also, a private investor does not buy or sell paper, does not escrow taxes, does not split or broker commissions, and does not close its own loans. In all of these respects, WPR had the attributes of a private investor. When mortgage brokerage firms are involved in transactions with private investors, they must supply the private investor with certain documents that are not provided to an institutional investor. Among others, they include a disclosure agreement, receipt of recorded instruments, an appraisal or waiver of the same, and title insurance. In addition, Division rules require that a mortgage brokerage firm record its transactions with private investors in a log journal known as DBF-MB-888. The evidence shows that for transactions between WPR and at least two mortgage brokerage firms during the years in question, the two firms recorded those transactions on DBF-MB-888. They also provided WPR with documents typically given to private investors. The Division has adopted Rule 3D-40.290(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a person is deemed to be holding himself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business if he advertises in a manner "which would lead the reader to believe the person was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans." The rule has not been challenged and, for purposes of resolving this controversy, is presumed to be valid. In view of the representations that WPR provided "Fast Service on 1st Mortgages" and "Vacant Land Loans," it is fair to infer that the Yellow Page advertisements made by WPR would reasonably lead the reader to believe that WPR was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans. Therefore, by virtue of advertising in the Yellow Pages, WPR is deemed to be holding itself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business. During the years 1993-95, the Division routinely sent WPR questionnaires regarding various WPR transactions with licensed lenders. The transmittal letter accompanying the questionnaire noted that the Division was conducting "a routine examination" of the licensed lender (and not WPR), and WPR's comments would "be of material assistance to (the Division) in determining compliance with the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act." By way of an estoppel defense, WPR has essentially contended that the questionnaires constituted a representation by the Division that WPR was merely a private lender. It further contends that, to its detriment, it relied upon that representation. But there is nothing in the documents that states that the Division considered WPR to be a private lender. Nor is there any evidence that the Division made any other oral or written representations to WPR that it did not need to secure a license. Finally, assuming arguendo that such a representation occurred, there was no showing that WPR relied to its detriment on such an alleged "misstatement of fact." WPR also raises the defense of laches arguing that it was severely prejudiced by the Division's delay in prosecuting this action. Except for testimony that respondent was forced to secure the services of an attorney to defend against this action, and its principal was required to attend a hearing, there was no showing of prejudice on the part of WPR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order requiring respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the mortgage lending business without a license. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 17th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-0290 Petitioner: Because petitioner's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. Respondent: Because respondent's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry L. Hooper, III, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Clyde C. Caillouet, Jr., Esquire 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103 Pensacola, Florida 32503 John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire 358-C West Nine Mile Road Pensacola, Florida 32534-1818
Findings Of Fact On November 16, 1983, the Respondent Miami Postal Service Credit Union (hereafter Miami Postal) filed an application for an expanded field of membership with the Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (hereafter Department). The Department noticed the application which it received from Miami Postal on November 23, 1983. Victoria N. Cecile, Office Manager of Petitioner Miami Federal Credit Union (hereafter Miami Federal), filed a written protest with the Department in opposition to Miami Postal's proposed expansion on December 7, 1983. Miami Postal is seeking to expand its field of membership due to numerous inquiries it has received from federal employees who work in the vicinity of Miami International Airport. These federal employees have sought the services of Miami Postal since it is located in close proximity to the area where they work. It is inconvenient for many of the federal employees who work near the airport and live in West Dade to utilize the services offered by Miami Federal because of its downtown location. Miami Postal, which was chartered in 1926, has a present staff of 20 full-time employees and 8,500 members. It has approximately twenty-seven million dollars in assets and is in good financial condition. The geographic limit of Miami Postal is Dade County. Although it has no branch offices, it does have Automatic Teller Machines for members' use at Publix Supermarkets. If Miami Postal's membership is expanded to include all federal employees in Dade County, their immediate families and family members of postal service employees not residing under the same roof, a staff increase of two to three employees would be required to service the added members. The expansion will be accompanied by an advertising campaign which is reflected in Miami Postal's budget. Moreover, the expansion would not result in any lower level of service to existing members. For example, the rates charged by Miami Postal for new and used auto loans will not increase as a result of the expansion and dividends would continue to be paid regularly to members. Miami Postal has received numerous requests for home equity loans, an area which it has been unable to service. However, with the additional capital expected to be generated by new members, the possibility exists that Miami Postal could begin lending in this area. Although Miami Postal may take potential members away from Miami Federal, the precise effect of the proposed expansion on the existing facility is undetermined. Miami Federal presented no evidence concerning how it would be financially damaged by the expansion other than the possible loss of potential members. Miami Federal would continue to pay dividends and would not go out of business if the expansion were approved. Miami Federal disputed the contention that its location is inconvenient to many federal employees who live in West Dade since it offers consumers the ability to transact business by phone and mail.
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
The Issue Whether Petitioner's September 29, 1993, claim (Claim No. 34092993) for reimbursement of expenses for medical services rendered in 1992 should be denied on the ground that said claim was not timely filed with Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Department")?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a participant in the State of Florida Flexible Benefits Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") with an established Medical Reimbursement Account. The following were among the medical expenses incurred by Petitioner and members of her immediate family during the 1992 calendar year: DATE TYPE OF SERVICE AMOUNT 6/29/92 Dental $70.00 7/9/92 Dental $310.00 7/11/92 Endodontic $450.00 7/17/92 Optical $266.75 7/22/92 Dental $500.00 7/27/92 Optical $84.70 8/19/92 Optical $416.50 12/29/92 Dental $210.00 In August of 1992, Hurricane Andrew ravaged parts of South Florida. Petitioner's residence was extensively damaged by the storm. Most of the contents of the residence, including medical records and receipts, were destroyed. Petitioner and her family were forced to vacate the premises. They packed their remaining belongings and moved to another location in Dade County, with the intention of returning to their home once the damage to the structure had been repaired. As of the date of the hearing in this case, all of the necessary repairs to the home had yet to be made and therefore the family had not moved back in. Petitioner and the other members of her family were among those residents of South Florida whose lives were significantly disrupted by the hurricane and the destruction and devastation it caused In the aftermath of the hurricane, Petitioner directed her energies toward obtaining a return to normalcy in her life. Although she realized that there were medical expense reimbursement claims that she needed to file with the Department, filing these claims was not a priority of hers. She focused her attention on other matters that she considered to be more deserving of her time given her situation. In January or February of 1993, Petitioner telephoned the Department to inquire if extensions of time for filing reimbursement claims were being given to Plan participants, such as herself, who were still suffering from the consequences of Hurricane Andrew. The person to whom Petitioner spoke advised her that such extensions were indeed being given. Based upon what she had been told by this Department representative, Petitioner reasonably believed that she would be able to file reimbursement claims for 1992 medical expenses after March 1, 1993, without having these claims rejected on the ground that they had been untimely filed. She therefore felt that there was no urgency with respect to the filing of these claims and she acted accordingly. Shortly after gathering all of the supporting documentation she believed she needed, 1 Petitioner, on September 29, 1993, filed a claim with the Department requesting that she be reimbursed from her Medical Reimbursement Account for the medical expenses enumerated in Finding of Fact 2 of this Recommended Order. The Department designated the claim as Claim No. 34092993. Petitioner also sought reimbursement, through the filing of this claim, of certain medical expenses incurred in 1993, including $140.00 for dental work that Petitioner had inadvertently indicated on the claim form had been performed in July of 1992. The work had actually been done in July of 1993. By letter dated October 8, 1993, the Department advised Petitioner that "[o]nly expenses for services rendered during the January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 plan year are eligible for reimbursement" and that "[s]ince [her] 1992 expense does not fall within this plan year, it is not reimbursable." Petitioner responded to this advisement by sending the following letter, dated November 28, 1993, to the Department: This is a petition or application requesting a formal hearing on my Claim #34092993 for Payment/Reimbursement for expenses incurred during my period of coverage for 1992. This Claim was denied. My Name is: Luretha F. Lucky My Address is: 10430 S.W. 162nd Terrace (temporary) Miami, Florida 33157 My permanent address is: 10361 S.W. 139th Street Miami, Florida 33176 I am employed at Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199. I filed my claim late because my home was severely damaged when hit [b]y Hurricane Andrew, August 24, 1992. In addition, the content[s] in my home w[ere] destroyed, therefore, it took awhile for me to collect documentation for my claim from medical personnel. Also, I had to move and the few items saved were packed away. Lastly, I called the Department of Management Services, Division of State Employees' Insurance to inform them of what had happened to me and asked if . . . they were providing extensions on submitting claims. I was told they were. My mistake was not asking and recording the name of the person with whom I spoke. As you can see from my temporary address, I am still not back in my home! In fact we just settled (with the assistance of the Insurance Commissioner's Office) with our insurance company to complete the work on our home. We had to request an extension on filing our income tax for 1992. This past year has been an awful experience for us, and I do hope you will provide me a hearing on my reimbursement. My Claim # is: 34092993. The decision that my claim was denied was received by regular mail. Thank you very much for considering my request.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Petitioner's September 29, 1993, claim (Claim No. 34092993) for reimbursement of expenses for medical services rendered in 1992 to have been timely filed and therefore subject to consideration on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of April, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 15th day of April, 1994.
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Melvin Haber applied for registration as a mortgage broker by filing an application for registration as a mortgage broker on December 20, 1976. On January 14, 1977, Petitioner issued to Respondent its Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for registration as a mortgage broker. The reasons for such denial were set forth in an accompanying document entitled "Administrative Charges and Complaint." Petitioner Division of Finance had determined that Respondent Melvin Haber did not meet the proper qualifications necessary to be licensed as a mortgage broker and that he had, through Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions provided by the Florida Statutes; and although he had stated otherwise on his application, Respondent in fact had been charged in a pending lawsuit with fraudulent and dishonest dealings; and had demonstrated a course of conduct which was negligent and or incompetent in the performance of acts for which he was required to hold a license. By letter dated January 19, 1977, to Mr. Joseph Ehrlich of the Comptroller's Office, Tallahassee, Florida, Petitioner received a request from the Respondent Melvin J. Haber in which he acknowledged receipt of his rejection for mortgage broker's license and stated, "I received notice today of my rejection for my mortgage broker's license. I would, therefore, withdraw my application and re- quest return of $75.00 as I will not answer the rejection as I can't afford an attorney at this time." A Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint was entered on February 11, 1977. The grounds are as follows: "1. The Department of Banking and Finance does not have jurisdiction over this Respondent. There is no jurisdiction in any administrative proceeding over this Respondent. There is no pending application for any mortgage broker's license by this Respondent. The application originally filed for the mortgage broker's license was withdrawn on January 19, 1977. A copy of the letter withdrawing application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proceedings are moot and would serve no useful purpose. Permitting this tribunal to proceed on a non-existent request for broker's license would deny to the Respondent due process of law, equal protection of the law, and his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions applicable thereto." On March 4, 1977, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Eugene J. Cella, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, requesting a hearing in this cause be set at the earliest practical date, and enclosed in the letter requesting a hearing was a copy of the Division of Finance's Administrative Complaint and a copy of the Respondent's Special Appearance to Dismiss the Complaint. A hearing was set for April 22, 1977, by notice of hearing dated March 30, 1977. A letter was sent by Irwin J. Block, Esquire, informing the attorney for the Petitioner that the Respondent "intends to permit the matter to proceed solely upon the written Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint heretofore filed." Evidence was submitted to show that between May 29, 1973 and continuing through November 25, 1976, Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation and Melvin Haber as Secretary/Treasurer charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowed fees or commissions in violation of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's application for registration as a mortgage broker indicated that Petitioner was not named in a pending lawsuit that charged him with any fraudulent or dishonest dealings. However, on August 5, 1976, a suit was filed in Dade County, Florida, which charged the Petitioner and others with fraud in violation of the Florida Securities Law. The application was filed by Respondent, was processed by Petitioner and a Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for Registration was filed together with Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction upon request of a party for a hearing once an application has been received and the Division has investigated and fully considered the application and issued its Notice of Intent to Deny and filed a Complaint on the applicant. In this cause the question of whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of fees also must be resolved. An orderly procedure to finalize the resolution of the issues is desirable and necessary. The Proposed Order filed by the Petitioner has been examined and considered by the Hearing Officer in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Deny the application of applicant Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license. Refund the Seventy-Five Dollar ($75.00) fee Respondent paid upon filing the application. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Irwin J. Block, Esquire Fine, Jacobson, Block, Goldberg & Semet, P.A. 2401 Douglas Road Miami, Florida 33145
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive attorney's fees and costs from Respondent pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1994, Dolly Davis, Insurance Specialist at the Department's Daytona Beach Service Office, sent a letter to Mary Russo, Examiner, Bureau of Specialty Insurers, which brought to the Department's attention that Capital was utilizing a billing service disclosure form in conjunction with its standard premium financing agreement to collect a charge for a supplemental product, allegedly in violation of Sections 627.8405 and 627.838, Florida Statutes. On August 25, 1994, Al Willis, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Specialty Insurance, sent a memorandum to Dennis Silverman, Legal Services, in which Mr. Willis requested the Division of Legal Services to issue an immediate final order to revoke Capital's license to transact premium financing or to fine Capital for allegedly violating Sections 627.8405 and 627.838, Florida Statutes. Mr. Willis explained in the memorandum that the Department became aware of the alleged violations through examinations of Ace Auto Insurance and Accountable Auto-Star, both of which were believed to be affiliated with Capital. On August 30, 1994, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Non-Renew Capital National's license. The Department stated in the Notice that the Department had obtained evidence that Capital was financing automobile club memberships in violation of Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes, and was utilizing a form in conjunction with its premium finance agreement which had not been approved by the Department in violation of Section 627.838, Florida Statutes. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an administrative hearing. The parties agreed to submit memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders based on stipulated facts in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. The parties agreed that the sole issue to be determined by the administrative law judge was whether Capital was financing the purchase of automobile club memberships in violation of Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated that the billing service disclosure form used by Capital is executed on the same day the premium finance agreement is executed, and the billing disclosure form is physically a separate document from the premium finance agreement. On January 8, 1996, the administrative law judge entered a Recommended Order, concluding that although the billing service disclosure form was part of the premium finance agreement, Capital was not financing automobile club memberships and, therefore, was not in violation of Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes. On February 15, 1996, the Department issued a declaratory statement, In the Matter of Just Premium Finance, Inc., Case No. 12412-95-C-JAB, in which the Department took the position that Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes, prohibits as financing a premium finance company's collection of a charge for the purchase of a supplemental product, despite the fact that the premium company does not advance any funds or charge a rate of interest for performing the service. On March 1, 1996, the Department entered a final order concluding that Capital was financing automobile club memberships in violation of Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes. Capital appealed the final order to the Third District Court of Appeal, Capital National Financial Corporation v. Department of Insurance and Treasurer, Case No. 96-0826. On November 6, 1996, the Department issued a Report of Examination for Dome Premium Finance Company, in which the Department noted that Dome was engaging in activities prohibited by Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes, by utilizing a separate billing disclosure form for the payment of supplemental products. On November 18, 1996, the Department sent a letter to Richard Perry, President of Perry and Company, in which the Department requested confirmation that all companies managed or serviced by Perry and Company had terminated the practice of using separate consumer finance agreements. On January 12, 1997, Mr. Perry verified that all companies managed or serviced by Perry and Company had terminated this practice. Perry and Company manages and/or services the following premium finance companies: Freedom Premium Finance Corporation; Equity Premium, Inc.; Puritan Budget Plan, Inc.; and Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc. Capital National was the only premium finance company to challenge the Department's interpretation of Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes, and thus, it was the only premium finance company to receive a Notice of Intent to Non-Renew its license. The Notice of Intent to Non-Renew was used for the first time against Capital and has never been used again. On March 12, 1997, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the Department's final order, finding that Capital was not financing automobile club membership under Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes. On April 29, 1997, pursuant to the Third District Court of Appeal's Mandate, the Department issued an amended final order consistent with the Appellate Court's decision. Capital incurred total attorney's fees of $23,010 and costs of $2,024 in defending against the Department's Notice of Intent not to renew Capital's premium finance license. The Department has agreed that the fees and costs are reasonable. Capital is domiciled in the State of Florida. Currently Capital has ten employees. Since its inception, Capital has never had more than 15 employees.
Findings Of Fact The Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Department), is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and to enforce the provisions of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1987), and administrative rules promulgated thereunder, related to regulating the practice of securities dealers, "associated persons" and investment advisors. It regulates sales and other transactions in securities and investments, as those items are defined in that chapter. The Respondent, David John Kury, has been registered with the Department since 1967 as an associated person under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to that registration, he is authorized to engage in the offer and sale of securities to clients. Since 1967 he has also been registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). Since July 21, 1987, Respondent Kury has been registered with the Department as an associated person of American Capital Equities, Inc. (American), and he has also been registered as an associated person with the following broker/dealers: Associated Planner Securities Corporation (Associated); Prudential Bache Securities, Inc.; and E. F. Hutton. These registrations cover the period of time from April 1978 through May 1987. During all times Respondent Kury has been registered with the Department as an associated person of American, he has been simultaneously registered with the NASD as a "principal" of American. American is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri, which has been lawfully registered with the Department as a broker/dealer since approximately August 1984. American operates a branch office at 116 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida. This office has been lawfully registered with the Department and in continuous operation since approximately August 21, 1987. Respondent Kury has been the branch manager of the office during all the period of time it has been registered with the Department. Kury has been registered with the Department as a principal of the Kury Investment Advisory Corporation (KIAC), pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, since approximately March 2, 1988. That corporation is incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and has been registered itself with the Department as an investment advisor, pursuant to Chapter 517, since approximately March 2, 1988. The Respondent corporation maintains its principal place of business also at 116 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida, at which address Respondent Kury maintains the branch office of American. Respondent Kury is and has been at all pertinent times the sole owner, officer, director and chief operating officer of the Respondent corporation. Since March 2, 1988, Respondent David Kury has been registered as an investment advisor himself, with KIAC. He is also registered in approximately 15 other states as an associated person, thereby being authorized to offer and sell securities in those states as well. Kury Financial Planning Group, Inc. (Group) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida on or about October 23, 1985. It maintains its principal place of business at the above-referenced address as well. Respondent David Kury is the registered agent, sole officer and director of Group. Since approximately 1976, Kury has engaged continuously in the business of financial planning for individuals in the Pensacola area. Pursuant to this business, he has recommended various financial products, including securities and insurance products for individuals' personal portfolios. He has also rendered advice to clients concerning matters that are not involved with securities or insurance, although the bulk of his financial planning advice and experience relates to these two areas. During the twenty or more years he has been licensed as an associated person only one minor complaint has been lodged against Kury by a client. He has never been the subject of a complaint or an investigation by the Securities Exchange Commission, the NASD, the State of Florida or any other state securities regulatory agency. Neither has he been the subject of a complaint or investigation by the Florida Department of Insurance. He is a member of the Institute of Certified Financial Planners, a member of the International Association for Financial Planning and is in the Registry of Financial Planning Practitioners, a very select group comprised of only a very small percentage of the total number of certified financial planners in the United States. The Respondent, Mr. Kury, has been highly successful as an associated person dealing in securities and as a financial planner. In 1983, while employed with E. F. Hutton as a salesperson, selling securities and investments, the Respondent earned commissions in excess of $500,000 for that year and was one of the largest producers for E. F. Hutton in the entire nation for that year. He received commendations directly from the Chairman of the Board of E. F. Hutton and other senior management for his sales efforts and his integrity. His personal share of the commissions earned that year amounted to $330,000. It is obvious that the Respondent has substantial earning power due to his knowledge, experience and other capabilities in the field of securities and investment sales and advice and the field of financial planning. The Department, commencing on or about May 20, 1988, conducted an investigation and examination of the affairs of Kury Investment Advisory Corporation and the branch office of American, of which Respondent David Kury was branch manager, located at 116 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida. It was thus determined (and established by clear and convincing evidence in this proceeding) that David Kury, as well as Kury Financial Planning Group, Inc. ("Group") sold or offered for sale both personal notes of David Kury, as well as corporate promissory notes of the Group, since approximately 1975. At the present time, there are approximately 50 persons holding 83 notes in amounts ranging from $5,000 to $200,000. These notes have maturities ranging from three months to four years, with investment return rates ranging from 9 percent to 13 percent. Some of the note-holders were told by Respondent Kury that certificates of deposit, by comparison, were then available to the note-holders or investors at rates ranging from two to three percent less than the rates offered by Kury and Group for the subject personal and/or corporate promissory notes. The total principal amount outstanding, represented by the corporate and personal promissory notes at issue, is approximately $2.4 million. The total principal and accrued interest as of June 15, 1988 is approximately $2.8 million. The total principal amount with accrued interest at the maturity of the notes in question would amount to approximately $3.1 million. The 50 note- holders are clients of the Respondent's. The notes were offered to them in the context of being investment alternatives to certificates of deposit and other "passive" investments, with the primary inducement being higher rates of return on the notes. Respondent David Kury and/or the Corporation failed to maintain and preserve an adequate record of purchases and sales of equity securities by maintaining a "purchase and sales blotter," as well as a "securities received and delivered blotter" and failed to maintain a current "trial balance." These items were not maintained in the ordinary course of business by Respondent David Kury and the Corporation. (See Section 517.121, Florida Statutes, and Rule 3E- 600.014, Florida Administrative Code). During approximately the last 13 years, Respondent David Kury has utilized the proceeds of the personal and corporate notes to pay business expenses for himself and the corporations he controls, as well as certain personal expenses, including the financing of his home (at a cost of approximately $1,000,000). The Respondents have sold or offered for sale the notes, both personal and corporate, without having them registered with the Department, which is required if they are deemed securities. The Respondents did not provide the purchasers of these notes a prospectus for purposes of Section 517.07, Florida Statutes. Group has engaged in the offer and sale of these notes to the note- holders or investors without being registered with the Department to engage in such activities, as required by law, if it be deemed that these notes indeed are securities. Respondent David Kury, in his individual capacity, and on behalf of Group, has engaged in the offer or sale of the notes without being registered with the Department to engage in such activities, either in his individual capacity or on behalf of Group, if the notes are deemed securities. Kury and the Corporation engaged in the business of "investment advisor" prior to lawful registration of that corporation with the Department to engage in such activity. Kury and the Corporation have rendered investment advice since at least September 18, 1987, notwithstanding the fact that the Corporation did not obtain lawful registration with the Department to engage in such activities until March 2, 1988. David Kury was the branch office manager for the registered branch office of American. He failed to establish, maintain and preserve certain books and records required by Florida law for registered branch offices of brokerage firms. In particular, he failed to establish and maintain the purchase and sales blotter reflecting all equity securities sold by American through Kury's branch office. Additionally, as branch office manager for a registered branch office of American, he failed to maintain and preserve a "securities received and delivered blotter." The Corporation, and Kury acting on its behalf, has failed to maintain a current trial balance indicating proof of current money balances in the corporate accounts. Respondent Kury, in his individual capacity and on behalf of Group, sold securities and/or investments (the notes) without making disclosures as to certain material facts, which disclosures were necessary in order for the purchasers or investors not to be misled. Statements were made in conjunction with the sales to the investors under circumstances, such that the omitted material facts, which were not disclosed, were necessary in order to prevent these investors or purchasers from being misled. See Section 517.081, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Kury and Group omitted to inform the investors of the following material facts: Information about the risks to the purchasers of the notes, including his and the Group's ability or inability to repay the notes generally and provision for repayment in the event of Kury's death. Information as to the use to be made of the proceeds of the notes, which in fact were used to finance business operating losses, business operating expenses and to repay personal debts of Kury, and to assist in the financing of personal living expenses of Respondent Kury. (d) Information concerning approximately $4,000,000 in liabilities and outstanding indebtedness of Respondent Kury individually and/or the Corporation and/or the Group. The $2.3 million negative net worth of Kury and/or the Corporation and/or the Group. The fact that Kury's previous employment with E. F. Hutton and Company had been terminated in 1984, partially because of his borrowing money from investors, in violation of Hutton's internal policies and NASD rules. In fact, Respondent Kury had borrowed an aggregate sum of approximately $327,172 from approximately 17 different clients by the time of his termination by Hutton. The fact that Kury's previous employment with Associated Planners Securities Corporation had been terminated in 1987 due to his borrowing money from investors in violation of that company's internal policies and NASD rules. The fact that Kury's personal and group life insurance policies were inadequate to pay the total indebtedness represented by the subject notes, in the event of Kury's death. The fact that Kury's representations concerning his abilities to borrow from banks and other financial institutions were predicated in part on inaccurate financial statements which under- estimated liabilities and overstated net worth without including on those statements the aggregate indebtedness represented by the outstanding personal and corporate notes. The fact that he had submitted an inaccurate financial statement to the Florida Comptroller's Office in connection with the charter application of American Bank and Trust Company during the Summer and Fall of 1985 in the process of becoming an organizer and founding director of that bank. The fact that he was using the money generated from the sale of the promissory notes, at least in part, to repay principal and interest payments due on other, earlier promissory notes. The fact that Kury failed to relate to the note-holders and investors how the promised rate of interest on the notes was reasonably related, if at all, to the risk associated with the investment involved and how it might be related to any other factor commonly known to influence interest rates. Witnesses Catone, Engelman and Boyd, testifying as Respondent's witnesses, in part established that the appropriate disclosures referenced above were not made. Additionally, Kury's explanation for submitting the false financial statements to lending institutions and to the Comptroller was to the effect that he did not wish to violate the confidentiality of the note sales transactions with the note-holders or investors. This rationale is illogical and self-serving, however, and is not accepted. Disclosing accurate financial information, required by law, to banks would have only required, at most, that Kury list the aggregate indebtedness he owed, the type of indebtedness owed, as well as information concerning principal balances, interest rates and repayment terms. Such information required on these financial statements would not have involved divulging the note-holders names or any confidential information pertaining to the note-holders, including the amounts of their individual notes. Law Professor Stuart Cohn was accepted as an expert in state and federal securities laws and corporate finance. It has thus been established that Kury and the Group sold approximately $2.4 million worth of personal and corporate promissory notes which are established to be securities and investments, as discussed infra., to at least 50 investors. This constituted, in effect, the borrowing of money from clients or customers, which is a prohibited business practice for a registered "associated person," investment advisor and financial planner. See Rule 3E-600.013(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and Article III, Section 2, NASD Rules of Fair Practice. Kury also effected securities transactions with customers which were not recorded on the regular books and records at American Capital Equities, for whom he was functioning and registered as an "associated person." In particular, he engaged in, sales and offers to sell securities in his capacity as an associated person of American, the Corporation and the Group and failed to record those transactions on the books of American. This is a prohibited business practice. See Rule 3E-600.13(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. He engaged in private securities transactions without notifying his principal, American. See also Article III, Section 40, NASD Rules of Fair Practice. The Respondents' activities, largely ongoing at the time of the investigation, posed an immediate, serious threat to investors or potential investors because the Respondent's activities constituted, at least in part, the operation of a "pyramid" or "ponzi" scheme. This occurs when funds from new investors, in this case the more recent purchasers of the notes, are used to satisfy interest and principal obligations coming due to earlier investors or note purchasers. Therefore, as time progresses, and more of such notes or securities are sold, then more and more investors will be subject to losing their investments and suffer financial hardship. This occurred in the instant situation through the practice engaged in by the Respondent of "note rollovers" or renewals when due without paying principal and interest owed, or all of it, as well as by making new note sales and using the proceeds, or some of them, to pay earlier investors in spite of the above-described adverse consequences. The threat to the public welfare, as described above, is also represented by the fact that Kury and the Group have undergone an obligation to the note purchasers in excess of $2.8 million as of June 15, 1988, with ultimate liability on the notes of more than $3.1 million, at the respective maturity dates, in the aggregate. The $2.4 million to $3.1 million liability to these investors vastly exceeds the assets available to the Respondents to satisfy the note obligations. Kury admitted that the Respondents are insolvent and currently unable to meet the total financial obligations represented by the notes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Banking and Finance finding the, Respondents guilty as charged, and in the above particulars, and that the registrations of the Respondents as associated person and investment advisors be revoked, provided however, that such revocation should be suspended and held in abeyance contingent on the Respondent David John Kury, under the close supervision and direction of the Department, embarking upon a plan whereby, by continued practice under his registrations, he will repay the principal and interest due all the investors involved in this proceeding within a time certain, as directed by the Department. That plan should include creation of an escrow or trust account, managed by an independent escrow agent, such as a bank, into which, pursuant to an approved plan and schedule, a substantial portion of revenues earned by Kury in the practice as an associated person, investment advisor and any other registration pursuant to the regulation of the Department, shall be deposited for the use and benefit of the subject investors. This arrangement should continue until the investors have been fully repaid principal and interest due them. Should the Respondents, David John Kury and Kury Investment Advisory Corporation, refuse to accept such an arrangement or violate its terms and conditions, their registrations should be immediately revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3419 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3. Accepted. 4. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. 5-19. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and to some extent not supported by the evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted in part but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. 23-26. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. 9-14. Constitute statements of issues presented and recitation of evidence presented and are not Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald R. Garcia, Esquire Charles E. Scarlett, Esquire Office of Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Philip J. Snyderburn, Esquire SNYDERBURN, RISHOI & SWANN Suite 240 280 West Canton Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Donald A. Rett, Esquire MANG, RETT & COLLETTE, P.A. Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida, 32302-3127 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 =================================================================
