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 a Florida corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. William Kirschner is Petitioner's owner and chairman of the board. Stacey Interlandi is its President and principal broker. Petitioner is in the mortgage lending and brokerage business. All of the mortgage loans it makes are sold to investors. Petitioner held an active mortgage brokerage business registration (No. HB 592567137 00) issued pursuant to former Section 494.039, Florida Statutes, which was effective from September 1, 1990, until its expiration on August 31, 1992. 2/ It currently holds a mortgage brokerage business license (No. MBB 592567137 000) issued pursuant to Section 494.0031, Florida Statutes. The effective date of this license was September 1, 1992. The license expires on August 31, 1994. From October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, Petitioner acted as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans and/or a servicer of mortgage loans. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has made mortgage loans by advancing funds to mortgage loan applicants. With respect to each of these loans, however, the commitment to advance funds was made prior to October 1, 1991. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has sold or assigned mortgage loans to non-institutional investors, but for no monetary gain. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has serviced mortgage loans pursuant to agreements into which it entered prior to October 1, 1991. At no time has Petitioner been licensed as a mortgage lender pursuant to Chapter 494, Part III, Florida Statutes. On or about July 31, 1991, the Department sent the following written advisement concerning the revisions made by the 1991 Legislature to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to all registered mortgage brokerage businesses, including Petitioner: The 1991 Legislature revised Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1991. A copy of the new law is enclosed. Some of the changes which affect mortgage brokerage businesses are: A mortgage brokerage business may not make (fund) loans or service loans. Only mortgage lenders and correspondent mortgage lenders may make (fund) loans. Only mortgage lenders may service loans. A mortgage brokerage business may ONLY act as a mortgage broker. "Act as a mortgage broker" is defined as: "... for compensation or gain, or in the expectation of compensation or gain, either directly or indirectly, accepting or offering to accept an application for a mortgage loan, soliciting or offering to solicit a mortgage loan on behalf of a borrower, or negotiating or offering to negotiate the terms or conditions of a mortgage loan on behalf of a lender." There are no net worth requirements for mortgage brokerage businesses. A principal broker designation form must be completed and maintained in the principal place of business and a branch broker designation form must be completed and maintained at each branch. The required forms will be sent to your office prior to October 1, 1991. To act as a mortgage broker, a licensed individual must be an associate of a licensed brokerage business and is prohibited from being an associate of more than one mortgage brokerage business. "Associate" is defined as: ". . . a person employed by or acting as an independent contractor for a mortgage brokerage business . . ." Under the new law, no fee or notification to the Department is required when a mortgage broker becomes an associate of your business. However, the license of each mortgage broker must be prominently displayed in the business office where the associate acts as a mortgage broker. Note: The Department will discontinue processing change of status requests under the current law effective August 1, 1991. Mortgage brokerage businesses in good standing which hold an active registration are eligible to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause. The applicant must have: For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both; Documented a minimum net worth of $25,000 in audited financial statements; Applied for licensure pursuant to the saving clause before January 1, 1992 and paid an application fee of $100. Should you meet the above requirements and wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause or if you wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to Section 494.0061, please contact the Department for the appropriate application. These applications will be available in early September 1991. THESE CHANGES ARE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1991. PLEASE REVIEW THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE LAW CAREFULLY FOR OTHER CHANGES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR MORTGAGE BROKERAGE BUSINESS. As promised, application forms for licensure as a mortgage lender were available the first week of September, 1991. Petitioner requested such an application form on September 18, 1991. The requested form was mailed to Petitioner the following day. On December 31, 1991, Petitioner submitted a completed application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "saving clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. The application was accompanied by an application fee of $100.00 and an audited financial statement reflecting that Petitioner had a net worth in excess of $25,000.00. At the time of the submission of its application, Petitioner had an unblemished disciplinary record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of November, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4313 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of facts proposed by the Department: 1-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 8. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 9-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 16. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 17-21. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 22. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 24 6/-39. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 40. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.
The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Jose A. (Tony) Torres was employed by the respondent Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance from approximately June of 1963 until February of 1986. For about 13 years, he held the position of Area Financial Manager in the Tampa office and was responsible for and in charge of regulating mortgage brokerage businesses and licensees in ten counties along the west coast of Florida. By letter dated February 11, 1986, petitioner was notified of the respondent's intent to dismiss him from employment on the grounds that, in spite of prior warnings, he had obtained loans from licensed individuals and institutions he was responsible for regulating. Petitioner was given the opportunity to respond to this notice, did so and the respondent thereafter affirmed its intent to dismiss him. Petitioner did not contest or appeal his dismissal. On March 6, 1986, petitioner submitted to the respondent his application for registration as a mortgage broker. By Order dated and filed on May 23, 1986, respondent denied his application, concluding that petitioner does not have the requisite experience, background, honesty, truthfulness or integrity to act as a mortgage broker in Florida. The factual bases cited for this conclusion are that petitioner was arrested in September of 1979 for gambling; that he declared bankruptcy in 1980; and that he obtained loans in 1981, 1983, and 1984 from individuals and/or financial institutions which were licensed by the Division of Finance, and also that said loans have never been repaid. The Centro Asturiano Club is a private social club where gambling (poker) regularly occurs. On Friday, August 31, 1979, at approximately 3:00 p.m., petitioner and others were arrested for gambling at the Centro Asturiano. At the time of the arrest, the police seized certain items including a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber firearm and $670. A motion to suppress evidence and a motion to dismiss were ultimately granted and the petitioner was not convicted. The gambling arrest occurred on a regular business day in the Office of the Comptroller. Petitioner states that he was on annual leave at the time. An employee in his office observed petitioner's secretary make changes in the petitioner's leave slip forms on the afternoon of August 31, 1979. It was not established that such alterations were not proper. On May 30, 1980, petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Title 11, United States Code. An order for relief was entered under Chapter 7, with a Discharge of Debtor ordered on October 8, 1980, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (Bankruptcy No. 80-00750). At least six entities listed as creditors in petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding were licensees of the Department of Banking and Finance. At the time, petitioner was charged with examining and regulating those six entities in his capacity as the Area Financial Manager for the Division of Finance. In 1979 and/or 1980, petitioner's superiors in the Department admonished him to refrain from obtaining loans from the industry he regulated, and that such activity constituted a violation of Departmental policy and the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. On March 1, 1983, petitioner obtained a signature loan of approximately $2,200 from the A. L. Machado, M.D. Pension Trust. Colonial Mortgage, Inc., which was then licensed with the Division of Finance as a mortgage broker, serviced the loan. Darrell T. DiBona, the director of Colonial, became licensed as an additional broker on June 19, 1983. The payment record on this loan, discovered during an examination by the Division of Finance in May of 1985, reflected that four interest payments had been made, but that the principal balance was still outstanding. Darrell T. DiBona made a check payable for one of the petitioner's interest payments owed to the Machado pension fund. The petitioner's version of the facts surrounding the Machado loan is not credible. He states that he had known Darrell T. DiBona for many years. DiBona handled petitioner's insurance needs, and petitioner, wishing to increase his coverage, had had a medical examination which indicated either an irregular heartbeat or fatty tissues in his blood. According to petitioner, he was having lunch with DiBona one day, and DiBona needed to stop by Dr. Machado's office on business. DiBona apparently handled pension funds for various physicians. While at Dr. Machado's office, the subject of petitioner's medical condition arose. Petitioner states that Dr. Machado offered to check his irregular heartbeat and gave him an EKG. During that examination petitioner asserts that he told Dr. Machado that he was having financial difficulties, and Dr. Machado offered to loan him $2,200. Petitioner insists that he made three or four payments on a note, and then paid it off in full in May or July of 1984. This latter payment, according to petitioner, was made in cash and handed to DiBona. Petitioner never received a receipt for the "$2,200 in cash plus the interest." Petitioner states that he subsequently asked for a receipt or the note on several occasions, but was told that it could not be found. The note and payment record were found by the respondent during an examination of Colonial Mortgage in May of 1985. As noted above, the payment record revealed that only three or four interest payments had been made. Dr. Machado has no recollection of examining petitioner in his office or otherwise discussing a loan with him. Had petitioner been examined by Dr. Machado, a ledger card or chart would have been prepared. No ledger card or chart for the petitioner could be discovered in Dr. Machado's office. Dr. Machado did not become aware that money from his pension fund was lent to petitioner until after DiBona's death. His office manager was then asked to write a letter stating that the petitioner's loan had been paid in full. Such a letter was written and petitioner picked up the letter from Dr. Machado's office. Although he had no knowledge concerning the loan, Dr. Machado agreed to sign the letter because he thought that petitioner could be one of DiBona's innocent victims. He, as well as other physicians, lost pension fund monies from accounts handled by Darrell DiBona. Beneficial Mortgage Company was licensed with the Division of Finance in November of 1984 as a mortgage broker. During that time, petitioner contacted the regional supervisor of Beneficial, who does not himself regularly take loan applications, regarding a home mortgage loan for his mother. On November 20, 1984, a $30,590 mortgage loan from Beneficial Mortgage was obtained, and petitioner co-signed the loan documents. The loan proceeds were utilized to pay off two prior mortgages, one of which was Colonial Mortgage. Petitioner's mother is elderly, speaks little English and petitioner often handled her financial affairs. According to the regional supervisor, petitioner was asked to co-sign the note in order to avoid any questions which might arise in the future regarding Mrs. Torres' competency to enter into such a transaction. As a co-signer, however, petitioner was guaranteeing the account. While the mortgage loan was for an amount less than the house was appraised and contained no preferential terms or rates, Beneficial required no standard credit report, income analysis or other financial documentation concerning the petitioner. Mrs. Torres' income and debt ratio were barely sufficient to make the monthly payments on the loan. Petitioner has two brothers and a sister who also live in Tampa. On December 6, 1984, petitioner obtained a $2,000 signature loan from N. D. Properties, Inc. N. D. Properties was solely owned at that time by Ben Langworthy, Jr., who also owned Diversified Mortgage Associates, Inc. At that time, both Diversified and Langworthy were licensed with the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. The petitioner made at least two loan payments directly to Ben Langworthy, who he knew was licensed by the Department. The $2,000 check given to petitioner was signed by Ben Langworthy. According to petitioner, Mr. Langworthy told him that N. D. Properties, Inc. was owned by two private investors. Petitioner's loan payment record with N. D. Properties shows that the loan has not been timely repaid.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Jose A. (Tony) Torres for registration as a mortgage broker in Florida be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 3rd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2473 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner p.1, last paragraph: Rejected; legal conclusion as opposed to factual finding p.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial p.2, 3rd paragraph: Rejected; immaterial p.2, 5th paragraph: Rejected; argumentative p.3, 1st two paragraphs: Rejected; argumentative p.3, paragraphs 7, 8 & 9: Accepted, but not included as irrelevant to ultimate disposition p.4, last four paragraphs: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.5, paragraphs 3 - 5: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.7, paragraphs 1 and 3: Rejected; not proper factual findings p.8, paragraphs 1 through 7: Rejected; argumentative and improper factual findings Respondent #6: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence #20 & 21: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence COPIES FURNISHED: Dick Greco, Esquire Molloy, James & Greco, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 910 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon L. Barnett Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 713 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Charles Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol - Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The pleadings in this case, Petitioner's Notice of Intention to Suspend" and Respondent's "Petition for Formal Hearing" establish the following uncontroverted facts: William D. McCaffrey is a mortgage solicitor holding license number HK0007207. The Department of Banking and Finance is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, including the duty to suspend the license of those persons registered under the act for violations of the terms therein. William D. McCaffrey has been convicted of a federal offense and is presently in federal custody at the Federal Correctional Institute in Montgomery, Alabama. On November 13, 1985, Respondent pled guilty to "Interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained credit cards, in violation of title 15 U.S. Code, Section 1644(b) as charged in count 6 of the Indictment". (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Count 6 of the indictment provides: Count Six On or about December 13, 1982, defendants WILLIAM D. McCAFFREY and WILLIAM BARTRAM III did knowingly, with unlawful and fraud- ulent intent, transport and cause to be transported in interstate commerce from Clarkston, Georgia, by way of Nevada, to the District of Arizona, a fraudulently obtained American Express Credit Card in the name of William Smith, knowing said credit card to have been fraudulently obtained. All in violation of Title IS, United States Code, Section 1644(b), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in case #CR 85-53 PHX adjudged William D. McCaffrey guilty as charged and convicted, sentenced him to imprisonment for 5 years, and ordered that he pay a fine of $10,000 and make restitution to American Express in the amount of $5,481.27. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2 Judgement and Probation/Commitment Order)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that a final order be entered suspending Respondent's mortgage solicitor's license for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Good, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Clyde Taylor, Jr., Esquire 1105 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
The Issue The following issues are presented for disposition in this proceeding: The effect, if any, of the repeal of Section 494.05, F.S. prior to the filing of the administrative complaint. Whether Respondent committed the violations of Chapter 494, F.S., with which he is charged. What disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondents mortgage broker's license.
Findings Of Fact Robert F. Potts is a licensed mortgage broker, having been issued license number HB0011700 by the Department of Banking and Finance (Department). At the time of hearing his license was in inactive status. Potts incorporated Florida Mortgage Equity Corporation (FMEC) in December 1983. Prior to that time he had worked as a mortgage broker for several companies, including State Capitol Corporation. When employed by State Capital Corporation Potts solicited investors for "equal dignity mortgages". State Capital's investment program offered eighteen percent interest per annum for a fixed period, generally five years. The Department investigated State Capital Corporation in 1982, and filed suit against the corporation, its officers, directors and several named employees, charging them with violations of the Securities Act and Mortgage Brokerage Act. The case was resolved with stipulations for final judgment, and Final Judgment was entered on April 11, 1983. Potts was not part of the investigation or suit. He left State Capital in late 1983 because he felt uneasy with the company. Around the time he left State Capital and incorporated FMEC, Potts solicited individuals with whom he had dealt at State Capital. /1 He sent a form letter on FMEC stationary, including the notation, "Robert F. Potts Licensed Mortgage Broker", as part of the printed letterhead. The letter informed potential investors of his new venture: * * * As you can see, the company is Florida Mortgage Equity Corporation, address and phone listed below. I [sic] pay you an interest check monthly, based on the rate of 18%. All investments are secured with property which is located in the Central Florida area. The terms of investment and amounts are to be discussed individually along with other pertinent information. (emphasis added) * * * (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) When individuals invested in FMEC, they were given a "Trust Account Deposit Receipt", reflecting the amount of deposit and stating that the deposited funds were to be used for purchase of a bond earning 18% for a fixed term, generally five years. The trust deposit receipt also stated that the investor would receive the following documents in approximately forty-five (45) days: - A copy of the Florida Mortgage Equity Corporation Bond. - Verification of full insurance on all corporate properties. - Copy of Appraisal on all corporate properties. - Copy of Financial Statement on Florida Mortgage Equity Corporation. (Petitioner's Exhibit #12) Approximately thirty investors invested in excess of $381,000 in FMEC. (Admitted in Response to Notice dated September 2, 1987.) With the exception of a Potts family friend and one individual referred by another investor, all FMEC's investors were people with whom Potts had recently had business through his mortgage broker activities at State Capital. Five of the investors testified at the final hearing. None had extensive investment experience and most were elderly retired individuals. None received the documents listed in the trust account deposit receipt except for the bond, but they were unconcerned so long as the monthly interest payments were being sent. When one investor inquired about the documents, he was asked to wait until Potts got a computer and could get up to date. He never asked again. Although the FMEC letterhead and Potts' business cards indicated that he was a licensed mortgage broker, Potts was not actually selling mortgages through that company, in contrast to his activity through State Capital. This distinction was lost on his unsophisticated investors, as the schemes both promised the same high yield for the same fixed period. The term, "mortgage", was a prominent part of the company name. He touted his status as a licensee, and the investors had seen his mortgage license when he visited their homes under the auspices of State Capital. To these individuals, Potts' promises of security were backed by his professional license. Potts' activity with FMEC consisted in soliciting funds from investors. These funds were then invested in a separate corporation, Roundtree Development Corporation. In return for its investments in Roundtree, FMEC received an unsecured corporate bond paying eighteen percent interest. The interest was paid back to FMEC's investors. In addition, Potts received a ten percent commission from Roundtree. Potts met Michael Deriemaecker, the president and sole director of Roundtree, in 1982 or early 1983. He learned that Deriemaecker was successfully involved in condominium conversions. After a series of casual meetings over a period of months, Potts decided to "join forces," in his words, with Deriemaecker. Potts never considered placing his investors' money in another investment. Potts felt that Deriemaecker was honest and successful in his ventures and Potts did not consider himself knowledgeable in real estate. Roundtree purchased the properties and conducted the actual work of development and renovation; hired and paid the contractors and completed the projects. Potts, through FMEC, raised the funds. Potts mentioned Roundtree Development Company to some investors, but did not explain to them the relationship between the two companies. The investors understood that their funds were being used for certain real estate projects. At least one investor, J. Daniel Johnson, thought he was supposed to get a mortgage for his investment. Another investor, Evelyn Foley, did not know the difference between a mortgage and a bond but had a clear understanding that her funds were going to be invested in nursing homes, condominiums and apartment buildings - property that was being liquidated - and that the property would be repaired and sold at a profit. The Department's investigation of Potts and FMEC included a review of subpoenaed bank records. These were incomplete, according to Investigator Alice Hampton, as some of the bank's microfilm was faulty. Ms. Hampton determined from the available bank records that approximately $169,450 was disbursed to Roundtree Development Corporation from investor monies in FMEC's accounts from 1983 to 1986. Bonds supplied to Ms. Hampton by Potts' attorney in response to a subpoena indicated that Roundtree/Deriemaecker received $285,000 from FMEC from September 1983 through October 1984. In an interview with Ms. Hampton, Deriemaecker said that Roundtree received approximately $236,000 from Potts/FMEC. At the hearing, Potts said he did not know exactly how much he loaned Deriemaecher. Michael Deriemaecher did not testify at the hearing. However, the account of his interview on April 14, 1987, found in Ms. Hampton's Report of Investigation (Petitioner's Exhibit #9), is consistent with, and corroborates Potts' testimony with regard to the relationship of the two companies, the use of the funds, and the fact that Roundtree stopped making payments to FMEC in January 1985, when a series of projects failed. By April 1986, all interest payments by FMEC to its investors ceased. No payments have been made since that time on principal or interest. Potts' claim that his investors assumed the risk of a risky venture and they got what they bargained for, both oversimplifies and misconstrues the facts. He was aware of the circumstances of the individuals he solicited; he had been to their homes as an employee of State Capital and knew of their financial status, their ignorance and their demonstrated eagerness to supplement their retirement incomes. He falsely promised that the investments would be secured, when they were not; he withheld material particulars of the relationship between FMEC and Roundtree; and he misused the funds of his investors by his improvident and reckless release of their money to Roundtree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Robert F. Potts be found guilty of violations of Section 494.05(1)(a), (b), and (c) and 494.05(2), F.S. (1985) and that his mortgage broker's license be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 21st day of April, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the Charges of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. Randstad is an employment services provider that assists clients with the placement of qualified candidates for available employment positions. BOA is a national financial institution. Randstad Petitioner applied for a Mortgage Customer Service Position that Randstad posted in August 2012. Petitioner was not hired for the position. Minda Hampel, an assistant branch manager for Randstad, testified that Randstad does not place candidates in every job that it posts. Ranstad's business records show a Mortgage Customer Service position was posted in August 2012; however, there are no facts or information contained in Randstad's business records to demonstrate that it assisted the hiring employer in filling or placing a candidate in that position. Ms. Hampel credibly testified that she had never met or spoken with Petitioner, and, therefore, was unaware of his race when the Mortgage Customer Service position was posted in August 2012. In October 2012, Randstad assisted one of its clients, MDVIP, with filling an available Purchasing Specialist Position. Petitioner applied for the position. Josh Rabine, a Randstad employee, credibly testified that, when Petitioner applied for the position, Mr. Rabine was unaware of Petitioner's race. Mr. Rabine further testified credibly that Petitioner did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position and that another applicant, who possessed over ten years of experience in purchasing management, was qualified for the position. Mr. Rabine did not decide which candidate would be awarded the position, and, ultimately, the position was filled by one of MDVIP's internal candidates. In November 2012, Ranstad assisted one of its clients, CWB Home Solutions, with filling an available position as an Outside Sales Manager. The position required prior experience with sales of audiovisual equipment and home systems. Petitioner applied for the position. Chelsea Arnold, a staffing manager for Randstad, credibly testified that Petitioner did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position. Ms. Arnold further testified that of the 12 applicants for the position, another individual was chosen who possessed over ten years' experience selling audiovisual and video equipment and home integrating security systems. Ms. Arnold credibly testified that she was unaware of Petitioner's race and that the client, CWB Home Solutions, ultimately made the decision to hire the alternative candidate. Bank of America On November 2, 2012, and January 4, 2013, Petitioner submitted online applications for Mortgage Loan Specialist ("MLS") positions with BOA in Boca Raton and Palm Beach Gardens. BOA's online application system is race-neutral. Petitioner did not identify his race on his online applications. Jorge Trujillo, the BOA corporate recruiter for the above-referenced positions, credibly testified that he has never met nor spoken with Petitioner. Mr. Trujillo testified that BOA was seeking candidates with sales experience, mortgage sales experience, and relational ties to the respective communities. Additionally, as the positions were located in South Florida, it was desirable for the candidate to be bilingual. The 2012 position was not filled because BOA cancelled the requisition.1/ Concerning the remaining MLS position, 31 candidates applied. Petitioner was not hired for the position. Petitioner had never worked in the Boca Raton or Palm Beach area and did not possess any mortgage sales experience. Mr. Trujillo testified that the candidate who was hired was an internal BOA candidate who had progressed from teller to personal banker and possessed relational connections with existing customers, as well as in the surrounding market. The hired candidate was bilingual (Creole), and African- American. Mr. Trujillo credibly testified that neither he nor anyone else involved in the hiring process was aware of Petitioner's race or that Petitioner had previously asserted a discrimination claim against BOA. Petitioner Petitioner failed to present any persuasive evidence that Respondents were aware of his race during the application process for any of the above-referenced positions. Petitioner failed to present any evidence regarding his employment qualifications in general or as specifically related to the above-referenced positions. Indeed, Petitioner's only evidence in this regard is his bald assertion that he was qualified for the positions to which he applied. Petitioner failed to present any evidence that he was equally or more qualified than the candidates hired for the above-referenced positions. Petitioner also failed to present any evidence that the above-referenced positions that he applied for remained open or were filled with individuals outside his protected class. The entirety of Petitioner's evidence in support of a retaliatory motive is set forth below: . . . it's been two years since I've been unemployed, seeking employment, and every position that I applied for or that I'm qualified for for different companies have pretty much sent automated response stating that we filled the position, and, for one person to apply for that many jobs for a long period of time, I feel that I'm being retaliated against, and I also was abused. Randstad and Bank of America refused to hire me and denied me of a job opportunity for positions that I'm qualified for. Ranstad also stated that there are other qualified applicants more qualified and they hired them instead of me, which is the statement that I'm making that I'm being retaliated against for full-time jobs that I'm qualified for. And, again, like I said before, a two-year gap in my employment is a sign of retaliation. The undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to present any credible evidence of a causal connection between BOA's failure-to-hire Petitioner and his previously asserted claim of discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the respective Petitions for Relief against Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is a state agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Financial Funding is a corporation. Eric Schwartz is the sole director, officer and shareholder of Financial Funding. Mr. Schwartz has been licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker continuously since 1983. Between 1983 and 1988 Mr. Schwartz acted as broker for a wholly-owned mortgage brokerage business. From 1988 until October 1, 1991, Mr. Schwartz was licensed as a self-employed mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz has also held a real estate broker's license since approximately 1978. Financial Funding was created by Mr. Schwartz in order to comply with newly enacted requirements of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Effective October 1, 1991, licensed mortgage brokers in Florida were required to be employed by a mortgage brokerage business. Mr. Schwartz was, therefore, required to create a business entity or work for someone else's mortgage brokerage business in order to continue as a mortgage broker. Financial Funding's Application. On or about December 12, 1991, Financial Funding filed an application with the Department for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). It was revealed in the Application that Mr. Schwartz was the President of Financial Funding. By letter dated April 24, 1992, the Department denied Financial Funding's Application. The Department denied the Application because of its conclusion that Mr. Schwartz, an officer of Financial Funding, had violated Chapter 494, Florida Statutes and had a disciplinary history. Financial Funding timely challenged the denial of its Application. The Eason Complaint. Between approximately 1984 and 1987, Mr. Schwartz was the sole owner and president of Paramount Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Paramount"). Mr. Schwartz was the principal mortgage broker for Paramount and utilized Paramount as the vehicle for his practice as a mortgage broker. On or about November 5, 1985, Agnes Eason filed a complaint against Mr. Schwartz and Paramount (hereinafter referred to as the "Eason Complaint"), in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, Florida. A Final Judgment was entered on the Eason Complaint on or about February 17, 1987. The court found that Mr. Schwartz had initiated contact with the Plaintiff, Agnes Eason. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had represented to Ms. Eason that the Small Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as the "SBA"), was about to foreclose a lien on her home. The court also found that "[t]he Small Business Administration, in fact, was not foreclosing on Plaintiff's property [and had no plans to institute foreclosure proceedings in the near future.]" The language in brackets was struck from the Final Judgment. Therefore, no determination was made as to whether foreclosure proceedings might have been instituted in the future. The striking of this language, however, does not prove that the SBA was considering possible foreclosure proceedings on Ms. Eason's property. Nor was Mr. Schwartz's testimony persuasive enough to reject the findings of the court on the Eason Complaint. The court concluded that Mr. Schwartz told Ms. Eason that "the only way to save her home from foreclosure" would be to execute notes and mortgages in favor of Paramount. Ms. Eason executed the suggested notes and mortgages and they were recorded. Although the notes and mortgages were executed on terms which Ms. Eason accepted, the court concluded that "no consideration" passed from Paramount to Ms. Eason for the notes or mortgages. The court also concluded that Ms. Eason executed the notes and mortgages because of the misrepresentation concerning the SBA by Mr. Schwartz. The court found that when Ms. Eason notified Mr. Schwartz that her payments on the note she had executed to Paramount were more than she could afford, the notes and mortgages were cancelled and a satisfaction was recorded. The court also found that after cancelling the notes and mortgages, Mr. Schwartz incorrectly told Ms. Eason that "the only way left to save her home from imminent foreclosure by the Small Business Administration" would be to execute a Warranty Deed conveying the fee simple interest in Ms. Eason's home to him. Mr. Schwartz also told Ms. Eason that, pursuant to a document titled a "Disclosure", he would grant Ms. Eason and her mother a life estate in the property. Mr. Schwartz was also to pay Ms. Eason $1,000.00 and to pay real estate taxes on the property pursuant to the Disclosure. Ms. Eason executed a Warranty Deed and the Disclosure on June 18, 1985. The Warranty Deed was recorded June 19, 1985. The Disclosure was recorded, but not until September 13, 1985. Although the transaction was explained by Mr. Schwartz to Ms. Eason and she accepted it, the court concluded that Mr. Schwartz's representation that foreclosure by the SBA was imminent was incorrect and that Mr. Schwartz failed to tender the sum of $1,000.00 agreed to in the Disclosure. Although Mr. Schwartz testified that he did attempt to tender the $1,000.00 (less $175.00 in recording fees), he did so after the Eason Complaint had been filed and it was rejected because of the litigation. Therefore, although the Disclosure agreement was executed June 18, 1985, Mr. Schwartz did not attempt to tender the $1,000.00 until some time after the Eason Complaint was filed on November 5, 1985. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had not paid real estate taxes on the property as promised in the Disclosure. Mr. Schwartz explained, however, that the taxes had not been paid because the first real estate taxes due on the property had not become due until after the litigation had been instituted. The court concluded as a matter of law, among other things, the following: That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ, on behalf of Defendant PARAMOUNT FINANCE CORPORATION [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned notes and mortgages. That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned Warranty Deed and "Disclosure." That the Warranty Deed executed by Plaintiff in favor of Defendant was procured by Defendant SCHWARTZ through the exercise of coercion and duress upon Plaintiff. That no consideration passed from Defendant SCHWARTZ to Plaintiff for any of the instruments executed by Plaintiff. That the purported promises made by Defendant SCHWARTZ in the "Disclosure", to the effect that certain debts of the Plaintiff will be paid by SCHWARTZ "if necessary", are illusory promises and impose no obligation upon the Defendant SCHWARTZ. Such promises are therefore unenforceable and do not constitute consideration in support of the subject conveyance. The court ordered the promissory notes, Warranty Deed and the Disclosure cancelled and declared them null and void. The Department's Awareness of the Eason Complaint. There were employees of the Department that were aware of the Eason matter at the time that an administrative action against Mr. Schwartz, which is discussed, infra, was being investigated by the Department. Prior to the action of the Department in this case, the Department has not taken disciplinary action against Mr. Schwartz's individual mortgage broker license as the result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint. The weight of the evidence failed to prove why the Department did not take action against Mr. Schwartz as a result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint until this case arose. The evidence also failed to prove, however, that the Department ever represented to Mr. Schwartz that it would not take any action against his license as a result of the Eason matter. 1990 Administrative Action. At some point during 1987, Mr. Schwartz decided to begin business as a mortgage broker with Mr. Stephen Hertz. Mr. Schwartz intended to discontinue operating through Paramount. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Hertz intended to operate their business as Dollar Mortgage Company (hereinafter referred to as "Dollar"). In June of 1987 Mr. Schwartz prepared an application to register Dollar as the mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz also prepared an endorsement transferring his individual license as principal mortgage broker to Dollar. These documents (hereinafter referred to as the "Dollar Applications"), were provided to Mr. Hertz to file with the Department. Mr. Schwartz, having been advised by Mr. Hertz that the Dollar Applications had been filed, believed that the Dollar Applications had been filed with the Department. Before being informed by the Department that the Dollar Applications had been approved or that his individual license had been renewed, Mr. Schwartz engaged in several mortgage brokerage transactions in the name of Dollar. Engaging in the transactions in the name of Dollar, therefore, constituted acting as a mortgage brokerage business without a license. At some point after the Dollar Applications were filed, Mr. Schwartz contacted Mr. Paul Richman of the Department's Miami office to determine what the status of the applications was. Mr. Schwartz was informed that the Department was in the process of changing the manner in which applications were processed and the process was causing a delay. Mr. Richman advised Mr. Schwartz to check with the Department's Tallahassee office in November, 1987, if the Department had not acted on the Dollar Applications by then. In November, 1987, Mr. Schwartz contacted the Department's Tallahassee office and was informed that the Dollar Applications had never been received. Mr. Schwartz submitted new applications at that time. As a result of the fact that Mr. Schwartz had transacted business before his license had been renewed and had acted in the name of Dollar before receiving approval of Dollar to transact such business, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint, Number 1154-F-5/88 (hereinafter referred to as the "Complaint"), against Mr. Schwartz. The Complaint was entered August 29, 1988. On or about January 23, 1990, the Department and Mr. Schwartz entered into a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Stipulation"), settling the Complaint. Mr. Schwartz admitted in the Stipulation to the following: 3. Eric S. Schwartz admits that he acted as a mortgage broker with an inactive license, and that Dollar acted as a mortgage brokerage business without a valid registration but denies intentional wrongdoing as more fully set forth in Mr. Schwartz's affidavit dated May 30, 1989 which is referenced as if fully set forth at length herein. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Mr. Schwartz was required to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00 for his violation of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. It was also agreed that the Dollar application would be withdrawn and it was. Mr. Schwartz's individual license was, however, renewed. The Stipulation also provided that the Department would make at least one examination of Mr. Schwartz's mortgage brokerage activities during each six month period during the next twenty-four months from the date of the Stipulation. Audits were in fact conducted by the Department. No further charges were brought against Mr. Schwartz as a result of these audits. Additionally, the following agreement was contained in the Stipulation: 13. The Department agrees that, upon execution of this Stipulation, payment of the administrative fine, payment of the restitution ordered, and faithful compliance hereafter by Eric S. Schwartz with all of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, the Department will take no further action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and the rules of the Department as set forth in the Complaint. However, should the Department, in its exercise of its discretion, deem it necessary to take action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and rules of Department occurring after the time period set forth in the Complaint, then, in that event, all such allegations and charges may be used against Eric S. Schwartz in any such subsequent proceeding, if relevant. Eric S. Schwartz understands that there is no order, administrative or judicial, sealing these proceedings in the event of a future administrative complaint regarding activities alleged to occur subsequent to the final date of the timeframe of the investigation of the affairs of Eric S. Schwartz' activities as set forth in the Complaint. See the second paragraph number "13" on page 4-5 of the Stipulation. In March of 1990, the Department entered a Consent Final Order incorporating the Stipulation. The Department has not brought any charges against Mr. Schwartz subsequent to the execution of the Stipulation. The Department has continued to renew Mr. Schwartz's mortgage broker's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order denying Financial Funding's application for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Financial Funding's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 6 and 8. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5. Although the Department offered no such evidence, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that there is "no difference." Hereby accepted. See 8. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 10-11 and 28-29. Accepted in 30, 32-33 and 37. Accepted in 31 and 34. Whether Mr. Hertz advised Mr. Schwartz to start doing business in the name of Dollar is not relevant. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "had no reason to operate improperly." What Mr. Hertz noted in his letter of May 18, 1988 is hearsay. The evidence failed to prove when the documents "had been previously provided . . . ." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "was not at fault." Hereby accepted. See 37 and 38. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz had "nothing to hide." The evidence also failed to prove that the Department's audits were "extremely thorough. What the Department did during their audits of Mr. Schwartz is based upon hearsay. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 39. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12 and 25. See also 17-19 and 21. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the second sentence. The fifth sentence through the end of this proposed paragraph is not relevant. The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Eason was "initially pleased." 20 See 14-15, 19, 21 and 22. 21 See 25-27. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department was aware of the Eason matter for "seven years." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove the third sentence.. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 12. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 13, 21 and 23 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 35. The Stipulation was executed in January, not December. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 40. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 3 and 7. Accepted in 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Highpoint Center, Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Ashley Peacock Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
