The Issue Whether Mortgage Broker License No. 3534 should be suspended or revoked under Section 494.05, F.S. At the hearing, the Respondent filed an answer to the charges in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, incorporating therein affirmative defenses. Rule 28-5.25(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the party may file an Answer which may contain affirmative defenses within 20 days of service of the Petition. Respondent's basis for late filing was inadvertence and neglect of its counsel. The Answer contained a general denial of the allegations and set forth affirmative defenses asserting lack of jurisdiction of the Petitioner to pursue its claims for alleged actions which took place on or before October 19, 1974, which was prior to the issuance of the mortgage broker license to Respondent. Further defenses included the claim that the Administrative Charges and Complaint are vague and ambiguous, that Petitioner had taken written action against Respondent without a hearing and denied it due process of law prior to the filing of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, thereby constituting double jeopardy, that Petitioner has unilaterally and without hearing denied Respondent renewal of its license, therefore denying it due process of law and claiming that petitioner is estopped from proceeding on the ground that it violated Section 494.06(5), in not keeping confidential the examination and investigation of the Respondent by giving press releases designed to influence the outcome of the hearing. The Hearing Officer permitted the late filing of the Answer and Affirmative Defenses at the hearing, over the objection of the Petitioner who claimed lack of notice as to the affirmative defenses. Respondent made a motion at the hearing to quash or abate the charges on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction on the basis set forth in its aforesaid pleading and on the grounds that Section 494.05(1) permits the petitioner only to investigate actions of licensees and not to suspend or revoke such licenses. The motion was denied by the Hearing Officer under the authority granted to deny, suspend or revoke licenses pursuant to Section 494.05, F.S. From statements of counsel at the hearing, it appears that Respondent's application for yearly renewal of its license was denied by Petitioner on September 3, 1975. However premature such a denial might have been, the question is not in issue in the instant proceeding. Nor is any purported violation by Petitioner of Section 494.06(5), concerning confidentiality of its investigations of Respondent. Both parties made opening statements and closing arguments. The Petitioner presented its case through two witnesses and submitted documentary evidence. The Respondent did not call, any witnesses. Petitioner also called Frank H. Roark, Jr. President of Respondent Corporation as a witness. Mr. Roark, after being sworn, declined to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination. The Hearing Officer thereupon excused the witness. Upon a showing by the Petitioner that the books and records of Respondent Corporation had been requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum and its request that Mr. Roark be required to identify the corporate books and records in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, over objection of Respondent's counsel, the Hearing Officer permitted Mr. Roark to testify for this limited purpose.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Banking and Finance of the State of Florida issued Mortgage Broker License Number 3534 to Respondent on October 10, 1974 (Petition and Answer). The transactions of the Respondent which are the subject of the Administrative Charges and Complaint, concern the purchase by investors/lenders of corporate promissory notes issued by a land development company which are secured by mortgages on its land. The purpose of selling the note is for the land development company to raise funds for the development of real property. The sales of the notes were made by Respondent to individual investors. Usually these transactions were handled through what was termed a "Master Broker" who was a middle man between the land developer and the Respondent mortgage broker which actually made the individual sales of the notes. Typical of the manner in which Respondent conducted these transactions was to enter into an agreement with an investor termed an "Application To Purchase a Mortgage" for a certain face amount at a specified interest rate with interest payable monthly and with concurrent delivery by the investor to Respondent of the stated sum under the conditions that the note would be executed, the mortgage recorded, and the note and recorded mortgage delivered to the investor-purchaser. In due course, a promissory note issued by the land development corporation (the borrower), was delivered to the investor, along with a mortgage deed to specified real property to secure the note. Some notes were payable on an interest only basis and some on a principal and interest basis. Some involved the issuance of title insurance policies and others did not. In some cases, Respondent remitted funds involved in the transaction to the "Master Broker" and in some cases directly to the land developer, less an amount retained by Respondent, ostensibly for its fees, commissions, and/or other charges. The funds were placed into escrow bank accounts when they were received from the investors by Respondent and then sometimes on the same day or in most cases several days or weeks later, the funds less the amount retained by Respondent, were forwarded on to the "Master Broker" or directly to the developer (testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3 & 4). Acting upon a request of the State Comptroller to have all mortgage companies examined, in the latter part of July, 1975, Mr. Lawrence W. Hunt, a Financial Examiner Supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Finance along with three assistants went to the Respondent's office to examine its records and determine from the examination whether or not violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act had been committed. Utilizing source documents from the company records, Mr. Hunt and his associates prepared a worksheet and listed thereon various items of information gleaned from these records (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). After preparation of the worksheet, overcharges as to the 402 transactions identified in the worksheet were computed by Mr. Joseph Ehrlich, Deputy Director of the Division of Finance, solely from the worksheet obtained by the examiners (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Such overcharges were computed with respect to maximum fees or commissions which a broker could charge in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3-3.08, Florida Administrative Code, in consideration of the amount of funds retained by Respondent, Mr. Hunt is not a state auditor and his examination of records did not go into the depth of an audit such a compilation of financial statements. His work consists basically of an examination which involves obtaining information from corporate records and placing it on worksheets so it can be analyzed. During Mr. Hunt's visit to Respondent's place of business, he received full cooperation of its officers and employees and found the records to be in good order. He also had no reason to question any of the entries in any of the records that he observed. Neither he nor Mr. Ehrlich had received complaints from any individual or organization about Respondent's operations prior to his visit. He did not at any time contact any of the lenders or borrowers involved in Respondent's transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2). On October 11, 1974, the Division of Finance issued a "Memorandum to all Mortgage Brokers" in which it was stated that it had been brought to the Division's attention that a number of mortgage brokers in transactions (such as those under consideration here), were remitting investors' funds to the land developer rather than placing the funds in an escrow account, and that such funds were being remitted in anticipation of receiving a recorded mortgage and note. The Memorandum warned that this practice could result in substantial losses to the broker in repaying investors should the land developer fail and was also in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act and could lead to the suspension or revocation of a license under Section 494.05, (1)(f), Florida Statutes. This section concerns placement of funds received in escrow accounts where they shall be kept until disbursement thereof is properly authorized (Respondent's Exhibit A). The Memorandum was sent to Respondent among others Mr. Hunt, during his examination of Respondent's records, found that Respondent ,had changed its escrow procedures approximately the date that the bulletin was issued and that there were no discrepancies after that date concerning escrow monies. By further correspondence in December, 1974, and May and June of 1975, Respondent's President posed various questions to Mr. Ehrlich to clarify certain aspects of escrow account requirements and received replies thereto (Respondent Composite B - Respondent's Exhibit C, D, F and G. (Note: There is no Exhibit E) In 402 separate transactions conducted by Respondent during the years 1973, 1974, and 1975, the mortgages which were purchased by the investors were delivered to the investor within varying periods from one day from the sale date until almost two months from the sale date. Forwarding of funds by the Respondent to the "Master Broker" or to the land development company was also accomplished in these transactions within varying periods of time from the sale date. These ranged from the same date as the sale to periods of a month or so thereafter, but usually on the date of delivery of the mortgage to the investor. The amounts forwarded by Respondent consisted of the face amount of the note and mortgage, less a certain amount which was retained by the Respondent (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). No effort was made by Petitioner's examiner to determine either the basis for the amount retained by Respondent or its composition. For example, he did not determine whether there were any "points" for service charges or discounts of any sort included in the retained sum. The examination was made solely on the basis of examining the business records of Respondent which did not reflect a breakdown of the retained amount. However, it could be deduced from various documents in individual investor files that certain amounts had been paid by someone unknown for title insurance premiums, recording fees and intangible taxes. The dates of mortgage delivery shown by Mr. Hunt in his worksheet were dates which he assumed were correct but he had not verified by any person the exact dates the mortgage was delivered to the investors. Neither could he ascertain from the records whether or not an investor had authorized Respondent to disburse funds at a particular time. The overcharges were determined in accordance with the formula set forth in Rule 3- 3.08, F.A.C., which is on a "gross proceeds" loan in which the borrower indicates that he wished to borrow a specified amount with all fees and charges to come out of the gross amount, thereby resulting in a reduced amount being provided to the borrower. The overcharges were computed without knowledge of whether the amount retained by the Respondent, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, included payment for state intangible tax, documentary stamps, and recording fees (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and 2). The overcharges set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 were unrebutted by Respondent and are deemed correct. In a transaction between Respondent and Cary G. Anderson, who applied for purchase of a mortgage on May 7, 1974, in the face amount of $3,500.00, the file relating to the transaction did not reflect the amount of any costs to be paid by Respondent in the matter, nor did it reveal a specific figure for brokerage fee or commission charged by Respondent. The file did reflect a bill for title insurance premium in the amount of $45.00 and recording fees in the amount off $22.25, $5.25 documentary stamps, and $7.00 for intangible tax. The amount of overcharge was $175.46. In another $2,500 transaction with Mr. Anderson, the amount remitted to the land developer was $2,075.00. The amount retained by Respondent was $425.00. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 establishes an overcharge from this transaction of $61.37. There was no copy of the mortgage in the file and therefore no information upon which to determine the payment of intangible taxes, documentary stamps and recording fees (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). In a $5,000 transaction between Walter L. and Thelma T. Beach and Respondent with application for purchase mortgage dated July 30, 1974, a check was written on Respondent's escrow account to Kingsland Development in the amount of $4,100. The maximum allowable brokerage fee or commission under the law would have been $590.90. The amount retained by Respondent was $900.00. The mortgage indicated that documentary stamps in the amount of $7.50 and intangible tax of $10.00 were paid. Assuming that Respondent paid the intangible taxes, and documentary stamps, the excess fee charged according to calculation under Rule 3-3.08, was $281.60 (Testimony of Mr. Hunt, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4). In respect to the above three transactions Petitioner's examiner did not find closing statements in the file, nor did he go to the Florida title ledger or Attorney's ledger of Respondent's records. However, he had, at the outset of his investigation, asked Respondent to make available all records concerning the transactions (Testimony of Mr. Hunt).
Findings Of Fact For the purposes of these proceedings, Jager Industries, Inc. and Castle Realty Ltd. are synonymous as Petitioner. Through name changes, Castle Realty Ltd. became Jager Industries, Inc. Under the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (Fund) which includes the duty to approve or deny applications for payment from the Fund, as set forth in Section 494.042, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, 1st Federated Realty Mortgage, Inc. (1st Federated) was licensed as a mortgage broker in this state pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license number HE 7896. On or about January 8, 1981, 1st Federated filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa, Division. Thereafter, on or about December 16, 1981, 1st Federated was dissolved. On January 29, 1985, the Department received a letter dated January 25, 1985, by regular mail, requesting payment from the Fund on behalf of Castle Realty Ltd. Attached to the letter was a final judgment entered on April 21, 1982, in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County against 1st Federated in the principal amount of $50,000 based upon a violation of Section 494.042(2)(d), Florida Statutes, a Writ of Execution returned unsatisfied and an Affidavit of Reasonable Search. Thereafter on May 17, 1987, the Department received by certified mail a copy of the Complaint filed against 1st Federated and supporting documents including a copy of the Master Loan Commitment, Affidavit and Acceptance of Service. Pursuant to the Master Loan Commitment, Castle Realty paid $50,000 to 1st Federated as a Master Commitment Fee in exchange for a promise by 1st Federated to fund up to $4,000,000 for individual condominium loans. The individual commitments and closing of loans were subject to the lender approving the borrower's credit; however, approvals could not be unreasonable withheld. Timely notice of the institution of the action by Petitioner against 1st Federated as required by s. 494.043(5), Florida Statutes (1985), was waived by Respondent. No evidence was submitted regarding the number of claims involving 1st Federated and the amount of those claims that have been paid by Respondent from the Fund. Accordingly, no recommendation is made regarding the amount of Petitioner's claim that may be paid from the Fund pursuant to the limitations contained in s. 494.044, Florida Statutes (1985). By Notice of Intent to Deny Payment from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund dated May 22, 1987, Respondent entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and denied Petitioner's claim. As grounds therefor, Respondent concluded that the 1985 and 1986 amendments to Chapter 494 were applicable in this case as those amendments were remedial or procedural in nature and should be given retrospective application. Thereafter, Petitioner requested formal proceedings by petition filed June 16, 1987, and this request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Comptroller's letter dated July 23, 1987.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, is charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Diko Investments, Inc. ("Diko") conducted business as a mortgage broker in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Dieter Kolberg ("Kolberg") was an officer, director, and acted as principal mortgage broker for Diko. Kolberg passed the mortgage broker's examination on May 28, 1985. Diko was issued a license as a mortgage broker with Kolberg as its principal broker on June 26, 1985 (license NO. HB-16568) Prior to May 28, 1985, Diko ran advertisements soliciting investors for mortgage opportunities. These ads included Kolberg's home telephone number. Prior to May 28, 1985, Kolberg/Diko entered into a business relationship with Michael D. Cirullo, a licensed mortgage broker, to "co-broke" mortgage transactions. Pursuant to their agreement, Cirullo represented the borrower/mortgagor while Kolberg obtained and represented the lender/mortgagee. Kolberg and Cirullo solicited and negotiated at least two loans prior to May 28, 1985. Kolberg acted in expectation of being paid as a mortgage broker. Cirullo remitted 50 percent of the commissions earned on these transactions to Diko. Diko stationery included the phrase "Licensed Mortgage Bankers." Neither Diko nor Kolberg has been licensed as a "mortgage banker." In August and September of 1985, investors, Marcel and Ida Barber, responded to a Diko advertisement which offered a 16 percent interest mortgage loan secured by prime residential real estate. The Barbers were interested in a safe, high interest yielding investment and requested more information from Diko. On September 23, 1985, Kolberg wrote to the Barbers to outline the following business policies of Diko: The first objective of the Diko lending program was "The Safety of the Investor's Capital." Any investment was to be secured by a mortgage on prime residential real estate clear of all liens with the exception of a first mortgage where a second mortgage would be given. Investors would be issued mortgagee title insurance to insure against loss due to defects in title to the mortgaged property. Investors would be issued fire and hazard insurance to cover any losses in the event of fire or storm. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid letter, the Barbers decided to invest $25,000 in a mortgage through Diko/Kolberg. This initial transaction proceeded satisfactorily and the objectives addressed in paragraph 10 above were met. In late December, 1985, the Barbers advised Kolberg that they would be willing to invest an additional $50,000 in early January, 1986. The Barbers expected the transaction to be handled in the same manner as their prior investment through Diko. After reviewing two or three loan proposals, the Barbers chose to invest in a loan to Tony Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. The loan was to be secured by a second mortgage on property at 713-717 "L" Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. The "L" Street property consisted of a 24-unit apartment complex and an adjacent laundry facility. Kolberg accompanied the Barbers to view the property. During discussions with the Barbers regarding the proposed investment, Kolberg made the following false material representations: That the property had a high occupancy; That rental payments were guaranteed or subsidized by a government program; That the asset-to-debt ratio for the property was acceptable; and That a proposed expansion of the laundry facility would further enhance the security of the loan. Financial statements of the borrower (Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc.) did not include all obligations against the "L" Street property. Diko/Kolberg did not give the Barbers an accurate or complete statement of the financial condition of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew the information on the statement was incomplete. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers the high rate of crime in the area which compromised the security of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew of the crime problem in the area. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that foreclosure proceedings had been instituted against the "L" Street property. Kolberg knew of the foreclosure action as well as the delinquency on other obligations. Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that he represented, as trustee, a Kolberg family company which would directly benefit from the Barber loan. The Barber loan would satisfy a mortgage held by Kolberg, as trustee, on the subject property, which mortgage was in default and in the process of foreclosure (the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure). Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that another mortgage held on the "L" Street property (David Marsh loan) was also in default. A subordination agreement was required to be executed by Marsh in order for the Barber/Medici loan to close. Marsh agreed to subordinate his mortgage position for approximately $3,000 in arrear payments. Marsh was owed approximately $125,000 but chose to subordinate because by doing so he was able to recoup a small amount of what he considered a lost investment. Kolberg knew of Marsh's situation and did not advise the Barbers. The Barber loan to Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. closed on January 18, 1986. The Barbers delivered a check for $53,000 payable to the title company chosen by Diko. Neither Diko nor Kolberg gave the title company, Manor Title, closing instructions to protect the lenders' interests. Kolberg did, however, instruct the title company to list expenses relating to the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure against the Medici loan. Proceeds from the closing, in the amount of $50,000 were paid to Kolberg, as trustee for "Ropet Anlagen," and deposited to an account by that name. The name "Ropet Anlagen" translates to "Ropet Investments." Kolberg handles all transactions for this Kolberg family company in the United States. (Kolberg has two sons, Robin and Peter, from a former marriage. The name "Ropet" may derive from their names.) Kolberg's former wife, Patricia Kolberg, owns an interest in Ropet Anlagen. Regular monthly payments were made by Kolberg to Patricia Kolberg on a Ropet Anlagen account. Many of the checks drawn on the Ropet Anlagen account were for personal expenses of Kolberg or his business. The first mortgage on the "L" Street property was 45 days overdue on January 13, 1986. Kolberg knew of this delinquency but did not advise the Barbers. To the contrary, Diko gave the Barbers an estoppel notice from a prior closing showing the first mortgage to be current. The first mortgagee ultimately foreclosed its mortgage and the Barbers lost their entire investment. The Barbers did not receive a fire and hazard insurance policy to cover losses in the event of fire or storm for the "L" Street property. The Barbers did not receive a mortgagee title insurance policy until March, 1986, by which time the first mortgage was further in default. Additionally, the mortgagee policy disclosed a financing statement and a collateral assignment of rents recorded prior to the Barbers' mortgage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller, enter a Final Order revoking the mortgage broker license issued to Dieter Kolberg and Diko Investments, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted; however, Kolberg's interest when financing with funds he controlled was only on a temporary, interim basis. The activities were conducted with Diko to receive a commission, therefore requiring a license. Paragraphs 7-15 are accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13. Paragraphs 17-18 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 14, 18, 22. Paragraphs 19-27 are accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Paragraphs 29-42 are accepted. The detail of Petitioner's finding is unnecessary to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 43-45 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraphs 48-52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 54 is accepted. Paragraph 55 is accepted to the extent found in findings of fact paragraphs 20, 21. Paragraphs 56-57 are accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 21. Paragraphs 59-63 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraphs 64-65 are accepted. Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondents: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Those portions of paragraph 2 which set forth Respondent's dates of testing and licensure are accepted, the balance is rejected as an erroneous conclusions of law. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight ofevidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 5 is rejected as the transaction was solicited with Kolberg's company, Diko, participating as a mortgage broker. Paragraph 6 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of theevidence and law. Paragraph 8 is accepted but does not mitigate, as a matter of law, Respondent's improper useage of the phrase. Paragraphs 9-11 are accepted; however the detail of thefindings is unnecessary and immaterial to the issues of thiscause. Paragraphs 12-14 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13 the balance is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraph 15 is rejected as unnecessary, relevant portions having previously been addressed. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraph 18 is rejected to the extent it qualifies Barber as a "Sophisticated Investor." The record is clear Mr. Barber was experienced in the laws of France; however, he relied on Kolberg completely as to both transactions which took place in Palm Beach. Moreover, Mr. Barber's useage and understanding of the English language was suspect. He could hardly be considered a "sophisticated investor" in light of the total circumstances. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 13, the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Moreover, it is found that the only times of capacity occupancy (which were limited) were due to temporary, transient, undesirable tenants who may have directly affected the crime problem. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraphs 23-24 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 25 is accepted but is unnecessary. The crime problem was there prior to closing and was undisclosed to Barber. That it worsened after closing only assured the disclosure should have been made. Paragraphs 26-35 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Many of the facts asserted here are based on testimony given by Kolberg. Respondents presume that testimony to be truthful, accurate, and candid. I found the opposite to be true. Paragraph 36 is accepted but does not mitigate Respondents' responsibilities to have completed the items at closing. Paragraph 37 is accepted with same proviso as above paragraph 36, ruling #22). Paragraphs 38-39 are rejected. See ruling #21. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted but see findings of fact paragraph 21 as to Kolberg's useage of Ropet funds for personal expenses. Paragraphs 42-43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence S. Krieger, Esquire 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Keith A. Seldin, Esquire 1340 U.S. Highway #1, Suite 106 Jupiter, Florida 33469 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondents, Samuel T. Henson and DuPont Funding Corporation, committed multiple acts in violation of applicable statutes and administrative rules and, if so, what, if any, penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the administrative agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.3 Respondent, DuPont Funding Corporation ("DuPont") is a Florida corporation engaged in the mortgage brokerage business at a single location at 7300 West Camino Real Drive, Boca Raton, Florida 33442. DuPont is registered with Petitioner under registration number HB 592710662. Respondent, Samuel T. Henson, ("Henson"), is the principal mortgage broker for DuPont. Henson is licensed by Petitioner as a mortgage broker pursuant to license number HA 247542864. As the mortgage broker for DuPont, Henson is responsible for his compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, as well as that of DuPont. Petitioner examined and investigated Respondents in response to five complaints received by Petitioner. The investigation involved events allegedly occurring between January 1, 1989 through August 31, 1990. Misuse And Misapplication Of Deposits The Smith Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $1,493.00 to Mr. J. W. Smith (the "Smith transaction"). Mr. Smith deposited $1,493.00 with Respondents to pay the costs of a mortgage applied for by the purchaser of commercial property owned by Mr. Smith. According to the terms of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application, the deposit was refundable if Respondents were unable to obtain financing for the proposed transaction. After Respondents were unable to obtain the financing applied for, they refused to refund Mr. Smith's deposit. Mr. Smith owned the Esmeralda Inn in Chimney Rock, North Carolina (the "Inn"). The Inn was listed for sale with Daniel Murr of First Commercial Brokers in Asheville, North Carolina, in the amount of $650,000.00. In October, 1989, Mr. Smith received a full price offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. and Mrs. William C. Robeck. Mr. and Mrs. Robeck were represented by a Mr. Castaldi as the their agent. The terms of the offer required Mr. and Mrs. Robeck to pay $25,000.00 and for Mr. Smith to carry a second mortgage in the amount of $185,000.00. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid in the form of a first mortgage in the amount of $440,000.00. Mr. Smith did not accept the offer of purchase from Mr. and Mrs. Robeck because he considered the amount of the cash invested by the purchasers to be insufficient. Sometime in December, 1989, Mr. Smith received a full price offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. Andrew Okpych. The terms of the offer required Mr. Okpych to pay $100,000.00 and for Mr. Smith to carry a second mortgage in the amount of $200,000.00. The Branch Bank and Trust Company in Asheville, North Carolina agreed to provide a first mortgage in the amount of $350,000.00. Mr. Smith wanted to minimize the amount of his second mortgage. He was advised by Mr. Daniel Murr that Respondents had represented to Mr. Murr that they could obtain a first mortgage for the purchase in the amount of $440,000.00 to finance the Smith-to-Okpych transaction. This financing proposal would reduce the second mortgage held by Mr. Smith to $110,000.00. Mr. Smith authorized Mr. Murr to contact Respondents. Henson contacted Mr. Smith by telephone to discuss the proposed financing in the amount of $440,000.00 on or about December 19, 1989. During that telephone conversation, Henson represented to Mr. Smith that Henson had located a lender which had already approved the needed $440,000.00 loan. Henson refused repeated requests by Mr. Smith to identity the lender. Henson insisted that Mr. Smith sign an agreement to pay the costs of the loan transaction and deposit $1,500.00 with Respondents before Henson would identify the lender which had pre-approved the loan in the amount of $440,000.00. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych signed a Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "agreement") with Respondents on January 5, 1990. Mr. Okpych signed the agreement as borrower and Mr. Smith signed as the person responsible for all expenses incurred in connection with the agreement. The agreement was signed by Henson on January 5, 1992, and sent by facsimile to Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych from the office of Mr. Smith's attorney. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych made several changes to the agreement and initialed the changes. One such change made the deposit from Mr. Smith a refundable deposit by deleting the prefix "non-" from the word "non-refundable" in the typed form of the agreement. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych sent the modified agreement to Henson by facsimile on the same day. Mr. Smith telephoned Henson on January 5, 1992, to advise Henson that the modified agreement had been sent by facsimile. Henson stated that he had received the agreement and stated that the modifications were acceptable. Henson directed Mr. Smith to wire transfer the $1,500.00 deposit. Mr. Smith wired $1,500.00, less the $7.00 charge for the wire transfer, on January 10, 1990. The wire transfer in the amount of $1,493.00 was sent to the account of Dupont Funding Corporation, account number 3601345943, NCNB, Deerfield Beach, Florida. Henson notified Mr. Smith by telephone on or about January 15, 1992, that he could not procure the needed financing. The reason given by Henson was that the lender did not want to make the loan because the property was located in North Carolina. Henson still refused to identify the lender to Mr. Smith, but suggested that the needed financing may be obtainable from "General Electric." See Exhibit 12 at 24. The next day, Henson telephoned Mr. Smith and stated that the loan was not available from any lender and that the deposit of $1,493.00 would be refunded to Mr. Smith later in the week. After repeated requests and written demands, Mr. Smith's deposit in the amount of $1,493.00 has not been refunded. The Robeck Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $2,500.00 to Mr. and Mrs. William C. Robeck (the "Robeck transaction"). Mr. and Mrs. Robeck deposited $2,500.00 with Respondents when the Robeck's applied for a mortgage in the amount of $440,000.00 on October 11, 1989, in their unsuccessful attempt to purchase the Inn from Mr. Smith. When Mr. Robeck questioned whether the deposit was refundable, Henson changed the typed form of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "loan application") by deleting the prefix "non-" in the typed word "non-refundable". The modified loan agreement was signed by the Robeck's and Henson. Respondents were unable to obtain financing for the proposed transaction. After the Robecks were unable to obtain financing, Respondents refused to refund the Robeck's deposit. Mr and Mrs. Robeck made an offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. Smith sometime in October, 1989. The offer was rejected, and the Robeck's asked Henson to refund their deposit sometime in January, 1990. Henson refused to refund the deposit and told Mr. Robeck to find another bed and breakfast inn. Mr. Robeck found another bed and breakfast inn for sale in Franklin, North Carolina. He offered to acquire the inn by lease-purchase. His offer was accepted, but Mr. Robeck later found approximately $1,000,000.00 in stolen property on the premises. The owner was arrested, and the lease-purchase transaction was not consummated. Mr. Robeck again requested the refund of his deposit, and Henson again refused the request. Mr. Robeck has never been refunded any portion of his deposit. The Shuster Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $2,500.00 to Mr. Sanford Shuster (the "Shuster transaction"). Mr. Shuster deposited $2,500.00 with Respondents when he applied for a mortgage in the amount of $3,500,000.00 on February 8, 1990, to finance the acquisition of an Assisted Care Living Facility ("ACLF"). Henson changed the typed form of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "mortgage application") by deleting the prefix "non-" in the typed word "non-refundable". The modified mortgage application was signed by Mr. Shuster and Henson. Mr. Shuster was unable to obtain financing, and Respondents refused to refund Mr. Shuster's deposit. Mr. Shuster made repeated attempts to obtain his refundable deposit from Respondents including several telephone conversations with Henson and two written demands for payment on April 10, 1990, and on June 2, 1990. In every instance, Henson agreed to refund the deposit but never did so. Mr. Shuster and Henson entered into a compromise agreement on September 10, 1990. Pursuant to the terms of the compromise agreement, Henson agreed to pay Mr. Shuster $2,000.00 in full settlement of the $2,500.00 claim by Mr. Shuster. Henson paid none of the $2,000.00 required under the settlement agreement with Mr. Shuster. Mr. Shuster sued Henson in Palm Beach County Court and obtained a Final Judgment against Henson on January 31, 1992, in the amount of $2,058.75. On May 7, 1991, Henson paid Mr. Shuster $100.00 toward the amount due under the Final Judgment, but made no other payments. Mr. Shuster has never received the balance of the deposit owed to him and has a claim pending with the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. The Linker Transaction Respondents failed to refund deposits totaling $22,500.00 to Mr. Gerald Linker (the "Linker transaction"). Mr. Linker deposited $22,500.00 with Respondents when he applied for a mortgage in the amount of $1,250,000.00 in May, 1990, to finance the acquisition of an alcohol and drug abuse center (the "center"). Henson obtained a written loan commitment from Nationwide Funding, Inc. ("Nationwide"), on May 23, 1990. Neither Nationwide nor Respondents performed in accordance with the terms of the commitment. Mr. Linker never received his loan and never received his deposits. Mr. Linker's attorney made repeated attempts to have Mr. Linker's deposits refunded to him. Mr. Linker's attorney filed suit in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, and obtained separate judgments against Henson and Dupont in the respective amounts of $69,023.01 and $69,520.78. Respondents paid none of the $138,543.79 owed to Mr. Linker. Mr. Linker has a claim pending with the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. The Barth Transaction Respondents failed to return a refundable deposit in the amount of $10,000.00 to Mr. Andrew J. Barth (the "Barth transaction"). Mr. Barth deposited $10,000.00 with Respondents when he applied for financing in connection with the purchase of the Cardinal Retirement Village in Bradenton, Florida, on November 17, 1989. Mr. Barth was to assume an existing mortgage of approximately $9,800,000.00 in the transaction. Respondents agreed to arrange the assumption. The owners of the Cardinal Retirement Village refused to proceed and Respondents never refunded Mr. Barth's deposit. The agreement between Mr. Barth and Respondents provided in relevant part: The deposit will be refunded no later than thirty (30) days from this date if this real estate and mortgage transaction is not successfully completed and closed. Mr. Barth made repeated attempts to have his deposit refunded to him. In May, 1990, Mr. Barth's attorney negotiated a Pay Back Agreement with Respondents in which Respondents agreed to pay $1,500.00 a month to Mr. Barth to refund the deposit with interest. Respondents paid only $3,000.00 to Mr. Barth. Mr. Barth has never received the balance owed to him for his refundable deposit. Failure To Maintain Escrow Accounts Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account during 1988 and 1989 and failed to place deposits in escrow. Respondents failed to place deposits in escrow for the Smith, Robeck, Shuster, Linker, and Barth transactions. The accounts to which the monies were deposited by Respondents were not escrow accounts. Respondents failed to place deposits from numerous other transactions in escrow. Respondents failed to deposit in escrow the following amounts: an appraisal fee of $250.00 and a credit report fee of $150.00 collected from Mr. Eric Jason prior to closing a mortgage for $101,650.00 on November 30, 1989; an appraisal fee of $250.00 and a credit report fee of $50.00 collected from Francis J. and Barbara A. Lynch prior to closing a mortgage for $50,000.00 on February 5, 1990; a deposit of $2,000.00 in part payment of the brokerage fee collected from Mr. Nicholas A. Paleveda and Ms. Marjorie Ewing prior to closing a mortgage for $356,400.00 on April 20, 1990; a deposit of $350.00 collected from Mr. Richard L. Trombley prior to closing a mortgage for $40,000.00 on November 2, 1990; and a deposit of $350 collected from the Sun Bay Development Corporation prior to closing a mortgage for $292,500.00 on February 6, 1990. Excessive, Duplicate, And Undisclosed Charges Respondents imposed excessive, duplicate, or undisclosed charges in numerous mortgage transactions. The costs itemized and collected from borrowers in these transactions were not supported by actual expenditures. Respondents collected $625.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Ernest L. Sego for an appraisal that cost $250.00. Mr. and Mrs. Sego paid $325.00 for an appraisal report at the time they executed a Mortgage Brokerage Agreement on August 17, 1988, for a mortgage in the amount of $151,000.00. At the closing on April 7, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Sego were charged an additional $300.00. Respondents collected $50.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Sego for a credit report at the time the Mortgage Brokerage Agreement was executed. At the closing, Mr. and Mrs. Sego were charged an additional $45.00 for a credit report. Respondents underestimated the closing costs for: Mr. Jason in the amount of $590.00; The Lynch's in the amount of $492.50; and Mr. and Mrs. Sego in the amount of $1,140.00. Failure To Disclose Respondents failed to disclose costs incurred by numerous borrowers. Respondents failed to disclose changes in the cost of title insurance which occurred between the time the borrowers signed Good Faith Estimate forms and the time the mortgage transactions closed. The estimated cost for title insurance for the Lynch's was $460.00 while the actual cost was $637.50. The estimated cost of title insurance for Mr. and Mrs. Sego was $200.00 and the actual cost was $263.00. The Mortgage Brokerage Agreement/Good Faith Estimate was not signed by two borrowers in separate transactions. Neither Mr. and Mrs. Knowlton nor Mr. Trombley signed those documents. Respondents failed to disclose payments made to a co- broker in two separate transactions. Mr. Nicholas Cancel was hired by Respondents to process loans. Loan processing is limited to preparing the documentation necessary to close a loan. Mr. Cancel is a licensed mortgage broker who was employed by a broker other than Respondents. Respondents failed to disclose payments made to Mr. Cancel in his capacity as an independent broker in the mortgage loans to the Lynch's and Mr. Jason. Failure To Maintain Books And Records And Failure To Cooperate Respondents failed to maintain books and records at the principal place of business. Respondents maintained only one business location. When Petitioner's investigator visited Respondents' office and asked for the books and records, Henson told the investigator that there were no books and records at the office. Petitioner subsequently served Respondents with a subpoena to produce Dupont's books and records. Respondents produced 57 mortgage files and some banking records. The files produced by Respondents were incomplete. Most contained only brochures. No files were produced on the Shuster and Linker transactions. During the investigation Henson represented to the investigator that he was neither president nor a corporate officer of Dupont. However, Henson repeatedly signed loan application and loan closing documents as president of Dupont including the Smith, Robeck, and Shuster transactions. Henson also entered into numerous co-brokerage arrangements as president of Dupont including arrangements with Mr. Cancel and Ms. Patricia Towers, president of Towers Mortgage Corporation, 6971 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida 33487. Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation, And Gross Negligence Respondents' intent to defraud and deceive the public is evidenced by a consistent pattern and practice of incompetence, gross negligence, misrepresentation, and failure to disclose material facts in multiple transactions over an extended period of time. Respondents knew or should have known that the acts committed by them constituted violations of law. Respondents violations resulted in financial loss to numerous individuals and to the public generally. Respondents failed to comply with agreements voluntarily executed by them and failed to pay amounts due under judgments duly entered against them by Florida courts. Respondents failed to cooperate with state investigators and failed to maintain books, records, and escrow accounts required by law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner issue a final order revoking the license of Respondent, Henson, and revoking the registration of Respondent, Dupont. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of September 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 29th day of September 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. He holds license number 0497295. The license is "involuntary inactive." Respondent has also held a State of Florida mortgage broker's license issued by DBF. The license had an expiration date of August 31, 1991. On or about May 31, 1989, DBF issued an administrative complaint in DBF Proceeding No. 1307-F-1-1/89 alleging that Respondent and others violated various provisions of the Florida's Mortgage Brokers Act. Not having received a request for hearing from Respondent, DBF, on January 11, 1990, prior to the expiration date of Respondent's mortgage broker's license, issued a default order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and permanently revoking his license, as well as ordering him to "tender the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) and a payment of three thousand ($3,000.00) for cost of investigation and prosecution." On or about January 23, 1990, Respondent, through counsel, filed a Motion to Set Aside the default order. In the motion, Respondent asserted that he had "failed to request a hearing [on the administrative complaint] simply because he was not aware of same." He further contended in his Motion to Set Aside that the allegations of wrongdoing advanced in the administrative complaint were "totally erroneous." On or about January 26, 1990, before DBF had ruled upon the Motion to Set Aside, Respondent, again through counsel, appealed the default order to the district court of appeal. On or about October 31, 1991, Respondent and DBF entered into a Stipulation and Consent Agreement which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: In the interest of compromise and settlement, the Department and Reynolds agree to resolve the appeal of the Default Final Order on the following terms and conditions: Reynolds agrees to withdraw his appeal of the Default Final Order and his execution of this Stipulation and Consent Agreement shall constitute a withdrawal of the notice of appeal. Reynolds neither admits nor denies the truth of the allegations in the Complaint and Default Final Order. Reynolds agrees not to reapply for a mortgage broker license under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, for a period of three (3) years retroactive to January 11, 1990. Reynolds further agrees to cease and desist from any and all future violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. This Stipulation and Consent Agreement and accompanying Final Order supersede the "Default Final Order Revoking Mortgage Broker License and Registration" issued by the Department against Reynolds on January 11, 1990. The Department agrees to reduce the administrative fine imposed by the Default Final Order to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Reynolds agrees to pay an administrative fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) by cashier's check or money order payable to "Gerald Lewis, Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance," immediately upon execution of the Stipulation and Consent Agreement. This Stipulation and Consent Agreement is being executed solely for the purpose of resolving and settling Reynolds' appeal of the Default Final Order. . . . 8. Reynolds agrees that the accompanying Final Order, which will incorporate this Stipulation shall constitute final agency action by the Department, for which the Department may seek enforcement pursuant to Chapters 120 and 494, Florida Statutes. Reynolds further voluntarily and knowingly waives: (a) any right to an administrative hearing or issuance of a recommended order as provided by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and by Chapters 3-7, 28, or 22, Florida Administrative Code; (b) any right to separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law; (c) any rights to contest in any judicial or administrative forum the validity of any term, condition, obligation, or duty created by this Stipulation or Final Order; and (d) any rights to object to or to challenge in any judicial proceeding, including, but not limited to, an appeal pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, any aspect, provision, or requirement of the Stipulation or Final Order, based upon its content, procedure of issuance, or timeliness. . . . Respondent entered into the Stipulation and Consent Agreement and agreed "to pay an administrative fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)" and "not to reapply for a mortgage broker license under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, for a period of three (3) years retroactive to January 11, 1990," not because he was guilty of any wrongdoing, but simply as a matter of convenience to avoid, among other things, the expense of litigation. The Final Order incorporating the Stipulation and Consent Agreement was issued by DBF on November 5, 1991. It provided as follows: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance ("Department"), and Respondent, Sherin V. Reynolds ("Reynolds"), having entered into the attached Stipulation and Consent Agreement last dated October 31, 1991, resolving and concluding this matter: IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED: The Stipulation and Consent Agreement entered into by Reynolds with the Department and attached hereto is incorporated by reference as if set forth herein at length. The Department and Reynolds shall comply with all provisions of the incorporated Stipulation and Consent Agreement. This Final Order supersedes the "Default Final Order Revoking Mortgage Brokerage License and Registration and Imposing Administrative Fines" issued by the Department on January 11, 1990.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of February, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1994.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to honor a subpoena issued by Petitioner as is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, ASPEC, Inc., is a Florida Corporation engaged in the business of Mortgage Brokerage in Florida. Shanker S. Agarwal is President of ASPEC, Inc. Mr. Agarwal has been licensed by the Department as a Mortgage Broker since May 24, 1985 and currently holds License No. HB-0016435 which expired, by its terms, August 31, 1986. On February 14, 1986, the Department received a consumer complaint about ASPEC, Inc., and pursuant to its investigation of Respondent's brokerage activities, the Department sent a certified letter to ASPEC, Inc., on March 21, 1986, to the attention of President Agarwal requesting that an appointment be scheduled with its Area Financial Manager, Division of Finance, Paul Richman. The returned service of the referenced letter was postmarked April 14, 1986. President Agarwal, or an officer from Respondent failed to schedule an appointment with Paul Richman as requested. On May 22, 1986, the Department served Respondent a subpoena duces tecum on May 23, 1986, by its then Financial Examiner Analyst I, Kevin J.C. Gonzales. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pp 9-10.) The subpoena issued to President Agarwal requested that the custodian of records, an officer, director, employee or member of ASPEC, Inc. appear before Paul Richman on May 30, 1986, at 9:00 a.m. at the Department's Miami Office and produce all books, papers and documents (of ASPEC, Inc.) from its inception to April 29, 1986, so that the Department could determine ASPEC's compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. President Agarwal, or a representative on behalf of ASPEC, Inc., failed to appear at the date and time specified on the subpoena, or thereafter, at the designated place to produce the requested documents. Respondent has challenged on constitutional and other procedural grounds, the Department's authority to conduct an investigation of Respondent as a licensee under the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Respondent's challenges were determined to be either beyond the authority of the Hearing Officer or lacked merit, and rulings to this effec were made during the course of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the Mortgage Brokers License No. HB-0016435 issued to Respondent for a period of (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles J. Gopman Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Shanker S. Agarwal, President ASPEC, INC 6912 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024 Ronald P. Glantz, Esquire 320 Southeast 9th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondents Phillip A. Banks (Banks) was at all times Material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0324865. Banks was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Abode Realty, Inc., which was at all tines material hereto registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0232550. On August 24, 1985, Respondents received in escrow $2,200 from Patricia Turner, as a deposit on her agreement to purchase a home located at 1300 Westview Drive, Miami, Florida. Pertinent to this case, the agreement was conditioned on Ms. Turner's ability to qualify for and obtain a first mortgage, insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the VA, in an amount not less than $40,837. Ms. Turner's application for the subject mortgage was duly submitted to American International Mortgage Company (American International). That application was, however, denied because the property did not appraise at the contract price. Following the denial of her application for mortgage financing on the first house, Ms. turner entered into an agreement through Respondents, dated November 20, 1985, to purchase another home located at 2501 Northwest 155 Terrace, Miami, Florida. At that time, Respondents returned to Ms. Turner the $2,200 deposit on the first contract, and she in turn deposited such sums with Respondents as a deposit on her agreement to purchase the second home. Pertinent to this case, the agreement was conditioned on Ms. Turner's ability to qualify for and obtain a first mortgage, insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the VA, in an amount not less than $39,867. The agreement further provided: When this contract is executed by the Purchaser and the Seller and the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of the Purchaser, Purchaser shall be liable to Broker for full amount of brokerage fee. The agreed brokerage fee was 7 percent of the purchase price, or $2,800. The second home was owned by Independent Properties, Inc., a corporation owned, at least in part, by Banks. This ownership interest was, however, fully disclosed to Ms. Turner at the time the agreement was executed. Ms. Turner's application for the mortgage on the second home, as with the first home, was processed by American International. While that loan was being processed, Ms. Turner contracted to purchase and purchased, unbeknown to Respondents or American International, a different home (the third home). When a American International discovered this fact, Ms. Turner's application was disapproved because she lacked sufficient resources to afford two homes and because she could not comply with the FHA regulation which required that the buyer reside in the home. But for Ms. Turner's purchase of the third home, she would have qualified for the mortgage contemplated by the second agreement. Ms. Turner entered into the agreement to purchase the third home on or about January 20, 1986, and her application for the mortgage on the second home was disapproved by American International on April 1, 1986. In the interim, on January 30, 1986, Ms. Turner secured a loan of $1,000 from Banks on the pretext that her uncle had been charged with a criminal offense and the monies were needed to secure his release. The proof established, however, that Ms. Turner had no intention of fulfilling her agreement to purchase the second home, and that the pretext she used to secure $1,000 from Banks was but a subterfuge to secure the return of some of her deposit. Ms. Turner made no demand for the return of any of her deposit monies. She did, however, file a civil action in January 1987 to recover such monies. That action was dismissed on motion of Respondents, but faced with the threat of continued litigation Respondents offered to settle with her for $1,100. Ms. Turner rejected Respondents' offer, and commenced a second civil action. That action resulted in the entry of a final judgment in her favor for $1,100 and costs. Respondents are ready, willing and able to satisfy such judgment, and have attempted to satisfy such judgment through Ms. Turner's counsel without success.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 a Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian M. Berman, Esquire SMITH & BERMAN, P.A. 2310 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33020 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact 1. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage brokers in Florida who worked for several companies were issued separate licenses for each company. P. Ex. 10, P. The Respondent, Dennis C. Young, had several such licenses, the first having been issued on March 26, 1982. Id., P. 9. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage broker's licenses were issued for only one year and expired annually on August 31st. P. Ex. 10, P. 9-10. During the period from September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1986, the Respondent had only one mortgage broker license HA 0006667 as an additional broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. R. Ex. 1, P. Ex. 10, P. 10-11. That license expired on August 31, 1986. Id. at P. 14. On January 22, 1986, the Respondent applied to the Petitioner, the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, for registration as a mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. P. Ex. 7. This application was for a license with Southern States Mortgage Company. P. Ex. 10, P. 12. On April 18, 1986, Petitioner denied the application of the Respondent for registration as a mortgage broker. The basis of the denial was a finding by the Petitioned of a number of statutory violations by the Respondent as a mortgage broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. P. Ex. 10, P. 13. On July 11, 1986, or shortly thereafter, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that his request for a formal administrative hearing with respect to the denial of his application for registration as a mortgage broker was denied because not timely filed, and advised the Respondent that he had thirty days from July 11, 1986, in which to file an appeal, if he so desired, to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The Respondent contacted the attorney for the petitioner. The attorney for the petitioner in fact told the Respondent that he could reapply for a license, and if his application was again denied, the Respondent could then seek a formal administrative hearing and judicial review. The Respondent was also told that the petitioner would not forego or abate the final order denying the application, but was advised to "let sit" the final order denying his January 22, 1986, application. T. 100. The Respondent did not file a judicial appeal from the July 11, 1986, order. During the period from September 1, 1986, to November 12, 1987, the Respondent was not a licensed mortgage broker licensed by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. P. Ex. 6, P. Ex. 10, P. 15. Between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987, the Respondent did not file any application with the Petit loner for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 10, p. 15. In about December, 1986, the Respondent was hired by Independence One Mortgage Corporation as a builder's loan representative for a builder that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then servicing. The builder was building and selling homes in the Williamsburg subdivision. T. 33, 35-37, 64. The Respondent's office was located at the building site. Independence One Mortgage Corporation hired the Respondent to offer to the clients of the builder the type of mortgage that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then offering, and in so doing, to handle all aspects of negotiating mortgage loan commitments, from initial interview, making quotes of daily mortgage rates to the builder's customers, and following up on the application from the beginning to closing of the mortgage. T. 37. The Respondent told Independence One Mortgage Corporation that he held a current valid mortgage broker's license with Investor's Home Mortgage Company and showed the agent of Independence One a "license" that the Respondent claimed was his and was then valid. T. 37. This statement was untrue. The agent for Independence One Mortgage Corporation who hired the Respondent had known the Respondent several years earlier as an aggressive mortgage solicitor. T. 36 Independence One Mortgage Corporation thought that the Respondent then held a valid mortgage broker's license, and would not have hired the Respondent if he had not represented that he was a licensed mortgage broker. T. 37-38. While employed by Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated mortgage loans. He quoted mortgage rates to prospective borrowers, received and processed applications from prospective borrowers, prepared good faith estimates of settlement charges, and closed mortgage loans. T. 42-56, 96-97; P. Exs. 1, 2, 4, and 5. During his employment with Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated over 40 mortgage loans. T. 55. From December, 1986, to May, 1987, the Respondent was paid a salary by Independence One Mortgage Corporation. In May, 1987, due to a lack of mortgage demand, Independence One placed the Respondent on a commission basis only. About two weeks later, the Respondent resigned his employment with Independence One. T. 55-57, 65-66. At about the same time, Independence One Mortgage Corporation learned that the Respondent did not have a valid mortgage broker's license. T. 57-59. On June 12, 1987, the Respondent filed another application for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 9. In answer to question number 6, which asked whether he had ever had his license "denied, suspended or revoked," he answered no. This answer was not true. P. Ex. 10, P. 16. The Respondent testified that he answered question number 6 in the negative because he thought that he would be afforded a right to contest the previous denial of his application if the new application was denied. At the time that the Respondent stated in his application that he had never had a license previously denied, the Respondent knew that statement was not true. He knew that he might again reapply and in such reapplication contest the basis for denial, but he also knew that the denial of the first application was final and that he had lost his right to appeal. See findings of-fact 5 through 8. If the Respondent had answered yes to question 6, he was required by the application form to identify the agency that denied the application for licensure and to provide the names of the complaining parties. P. Ex. 9. By failing to truthfully answer question 6, the Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner of the existence of the prior dispute concerning his licensure. This was a material misstatement of fact. If the Respondent had been candidly pursuing the option of making a second application in order to gain another appeal right, he would have candidly disclosed to the Petitioner in his second application that a prior application had been denied. In that manner, the Respondent would have laid the issue squarely on the table. By answering no to question 6, the Respondent affirmatively sought to mislead the Petitioner so that the prior basis of denial might not become the basis for denial of the second application. The Petitioner construes the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as mandating that a license be issued if not denied within ninety days from the filing of the application. P. Ex. 10, pp. 20-23. During the period in which the June 12, 1987, application was pending, the Petitioner did not independently verify the answers to questions on the license application, and assumed that the answer to question 6 was correct. P. Ex. 10, pp. 16 and 20. Had it known that the Respondent had previously been denied a mortgage broker's license, the Petitioner would have denied the application of June 12, 1987, for a material misrepresentation of facts. P. Ex. 10, P. 23. For these reasons, and since the ninety day period had expired, the Petitioner issued mortgage broker license HA 261088342 to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. P. Ex. 6. In July, 1987, Colony First Mortgage Corporation was looking for a branch manager for its Mount Dora, Florida, office. The company wanted a branch manager who held a mortgage broker's license to solicit business, as well as to hire and supervise other loan officers. T. 25. The Respondent applied for the job, and Colony First Mortgage Corporation asked for his mortgage broker's license. T. 93. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he had a mortgage broker's license. T. 26. This statement was untrue. In July, 1987, the Respondent was employed by Colony First Mortgage Corporation as a branch manager in the Mount Dora, Florida, office. T. 24-25, 59-60. Colony First Mortgage paid the Respondent a salary with an override of the branch's mortgage loan production. It was also possible for the Respondent to have been paid a small commission for mortgage loans that he might personally have solicited, but there is no evidence in the record (one way or the other) that any commissions were ever paid or not paid. T. 26, 28. The Petitioner requires that licensed mortgage brokers who change employment file an "application for endorsement" to change the registration of that license to the new employment. T. 72# At some time shortly before August 11, 1987, the Respondent filed with the Petitioner an "application for endorsement" for endorsement of a mortgage broker's license to work for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. P. Ex. 8. Colony First Mortgage Corporation required the Respondent to file this application as a condition of the Respondent's employment. The application bears the signature of a William D. Tharpe, dated August 11, 1987, representing himself as the principal broker for the Respondent, and stating that the Respondent was employed on July 6, 1987, as a mortgage broker. The Respondent submitted the application for endorsement 50 that he would be licensed as a mortgage broker working as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. The Respondent characterized his own activity at Colony First Mortgage as operation as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage. T. 10. But he denied that he personally solicited loans, T. 109, and characterized his work as supervision of loan officers, who did solicit and negotiate mortgage loans. T. 109-111. In his employment at Colony First Mortgage, the Respondent hired staff, since all prior staff had left, and trained and supervised loan officers. T. 110-111. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally solicited or negotiated mortgage loans. Toward the end of October, 1987, Colony First Mortgage learned that the Respondent did not have a mortgage broker's license. The company removed the Respondent from his manager's position and subsequently terminated his employment. T. 27# Directly under the heading of the Respondent's application for endorsement is the statement: "Use this form only if currently licensed." Two lines under that statement is the following statement in bold print: "CURRENT LICENSE MUST BE RETURNED WITH THIS APPLICATION." The Respondent signed the form and stated in part I of the form that he had license number HA 001637. Another license number appears above the first number, and is HA 0016329. P. Ex. 8. The application for endorsement is used only if the applicant has a current license. Neither license number was a valid license currently or previously held by the Respondent. Thus, the representation on the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, as to license numbers was untrue. T. 114. The Respondent admits placing the first number on the form and denies placing the second number on the form. The Respondent asserts that the first number he placed on the form was his guess as to the correct number, and that he thought the petitioner would correct it if it were incorrect. He further asserts that he represented that he was licensed because he thought that since he had reapplied, the prior denial of licensure was still a pending issue, and that he could rely on earlier licenses that had expired. He further stated that he intended the number to represent the number of one of his earlier licenses. T. 115. The Respondent did hold license number HA 0016329, which expired on August 31, 1985, and license number HA 0006667, which expired on August 31, 1986. R. Ex. 1 and 2. It is credible that the Respondent was trying to use one of his expired license numbers, notably, the one that expired on August 31, 1985, HB 0016329, which is similar to the number he used, HA 001637. But it is not credible that the Respondent thought that he was "currently licensed" as required by the form. The Respondent knew that his prior licenses expired automatically each year. T. 116. He knew that his January 22, 1986, application had been denied. He knew he was not currently licensed. T. 102. He only had pending an application for a license, and had no currently active license number. Thus, it is concluded that the Respondent knew that he did not have a valid license number when he placed the number HA 001637 on the application for endorsement. This was a material misstatement of fact. See findings of fact 38, 39, and 47. The Respondent denies that he placed the second license number HA 0016329 upon the application. The second series of numbers is written in larger script than the first one. While there are some similarities in some of the numbers compared to other numbers written by the Respondent on the application (the 6 is the same as the 6 in the Respondent's social security number and telephone number, the 2 is the same as the first 2 in the telephone number), there is insufficient evidence in this record to conclude that the Respondent placed the second license number on the application. P. Ex. 8. The Petitioner relied upon the statements in the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, when it issued the mortgage broker's license to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. p. Ex. 10, P. 20.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter its final order finding that Dennis C. Young committed the violations described above and revoking license number HA 261088342 issued to him on November 1, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL JR. 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 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2273 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact in this appendix are adopted as additional findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 1. The phrase "due to fiat of operation of law" is a conclusion of law, not fact. 2, 5, 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, 46 (second sentence) 49, 50, and 55. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 14 (first sentence). The fact that a witness "testified" in a certain way is not a relevant finding of fact. The subject matter of the Respondent's testimony, that he in fact filed another application in May or June of 1986, is rejected as not proven by credible evidence. The Department had no evidence of any application between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987. The testimony of the Respondent on this point was not supported by a copy of the alleged application. Due to the Respondent's evasiveness as to other material points at issue in this case, the testimony of the Respondent is rejected as not credible and unsupported. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 1.C. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. 1.E. While these proposed findings of fact are true, they are irrelevant. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), F1a. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." The relevant issue is what the Respondent in fact did, not what the titles on the form said. 1.F-H. These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the credible evidence. 2.D.and G. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), Fla. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." As discussed in the conclusions of law, the Respondent indirectly negotiated mortgage loans through his supervision of loan officers at Colony First Mortgage Corporation. 2.F. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. See P. Ex. 8. 3.A.1-3. The Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz told him to "let sit" the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and the Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz, on behalf of the Petitioner, would not abate or forgo the decision of denial. T. 100. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent knew that his application had been denied. This, coupled with receipt of P. Ex. 7, makes any contrary belief not credible. 3.B.4. There was intent to deceive. The Respondent knew he was not currently licensed. He knew the earlier license (the one which he tried to place by number on application) had expired. He knew that his last application had been finally denied. He only had a pending application (June 12, 1987), and had no decision on that yet. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he was currently licensed. If the Respondent had no intent to deceive, he would have clearly mentioned on the application for endorsement the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and his theory of the continued "existence" of his expired license. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dennis C. Young 4050 Gallagher Loop Post Office Box 771 Casselberry, Florida 32707 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in April 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination? Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in May 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of mortgage brokers pursuant to Part II of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 494.0033(2)(b), Florida Statutes, individuals who apply for licensure as a mortgage broker are required to pass a licensure examination. To pass the examination, a candidate must receive a minimum score of 75. National Assessment Institute is the company employed by Respondent to administer the licensure examination. Petitioner applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. On April 25, 1995, Petitioner took the mortgage broker examination. Petitioner was advised that she had achieved a score of only 64. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the examination questions and her answers thereto, and she did so on May 12, 1995. She questioned her failure to receive credit for fourteen of her answers on that examination and provided written explanations why she believed her answers to those questions were correct. Petitioner's written challenges and explanations regarding her answers to those fourteen questions were reviewed by staff of National Assessment Institute. The individual who reviewed Petitioner's responses did not testify in this proceeding. This individual determined that Petitioner's answers to those fourteen questions were incorrect and that her explanations were without merit. Petitioner was advised that she was not entitled to additional credit for her answers on the April 1995 examination. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her April 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her responses to the challenged questions on the examination. Petitioner also sat for the licensure examination administered May 23, 1995. Petitioner received a score of 74 on this examination. On June 9, 1995, Petitioner reviewed the grading of answers to the May 1995 examination. Petitioner asserts that the reviewer gave her the wrong question book so that the answer key would make her answers appear incorrect. For her review on June 9, 1995, Petitioner was provided a correct copy of her examination book, a photo copy of her answer sheet, her original scratch paper, and two challenge sheets. The information provided Petitioner reflected the response to each question the Respondent considered to be the correct response. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her May 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her response to any question on the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that the April or May examination was improperly administered. She likewise failed to establish that the opportunity to review the scoring of these two examinations was compromised by fraud or mistake. The Respondent has promulgated Rule 3D-40.031(2), Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes it to request additional information in conjunction with a licensure application, which information may include the applicant providing evidence of a passing score on the mortgage broker examination. That Rule requires that additional information requested must be received by the Respondent within 90 days. The Respondent requested that Petitioner provide evidence that she had received a passing score on the examination. Petitioner has been unable to provide that information.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's challenges to the scoring of the April and May 1995 licensure examinations be dismissed and, consequently, that Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5132 The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are rejected as they are not supported by the record. While Petitioner purports to explain her answers to certain questions on the April 1995 examination, this evidence was not presented at the formal hearing. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The fact that Petitioner challenged ten question as a result of her review on June 9, 1995, was not established. Since there was no dispute that the request for formal hearing was timely and this is a de novo proceeding, the proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 9,10, 11, 13, and 14 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Nasrin Y. Niknam 53 Castle Harbour Isle Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 302 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
