Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is a state agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Financial Funding is a corporation. Eric Schwartz is the sole director, officer and shareholder of Financial Funding. Mr. Schwartz has been licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker continuously since 1983. Between 1983 and 1988 Mr. Schwartz acted as broker for a wholly-owned mortgage brokerage business. From 1988 until October 1, 1991, Mr. Schwartz was licensed as a self-employed mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz has also held a real estate broker's license since approximately 1978. Financial Funding was created by Mr. Schwartz in order to comply with newly enacted requirements of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Effective October 1, 1991, licensed mortgage brokers in Florida were required to be employed by a mortgage brokerage business. Mr. Schwartz was, therefore, required to create a business entity or work for someone else's mortgage brokerage business in order to continue as a mortgage broker. Financial Funding's Application. On or about December 12, 1991, Financial Funding filed an application with the Department for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). It was revealed in the Application that Mr. Schwartz was the President of Financial Funding. By letter dated April 24, 1992, the Department denied Financial Funding's Application. The Department denied the Application because of its conclusion that Mr. Schwartz, an officer of Financial Funding, had violated Chapter 494, Florida Statutes and had a disciplinary history. Financial Funding timely challenged the denial of its Application. The Eason Complaint. Between approximately 1984 and 1987, Mr. Schwartz was the sole owner and president of Paramount Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Paramount"). Mr. Schwartz was the principal mortgage broker for Paramount and utilized Paramount as the vehicle for his practice as a mortgage broker. On or about November 5, 1985, Agnes Eason filed a complaint against Mr. Schwartz and Paramount (hereinafter referred to as the "Eason Complaint"), in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, Florida. A Final Judgment was entered on the Eason Complaint on or about February 17, 1987. The court found that Mr. Schwartz had initiated contact with the Plaintiff, Agnes Eason. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had represented to Ms. Eason that the Small Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as the "SBA"), was about to foreclose a lien on her home. The court also found that "[t]he Small Business Administration, in fact, was not foreclosing on Plaintiff's property [and had no plans to institute foreclosure proceedings in the near future.]" The language in brackets was struck from the Final Judgment. Therefore, no determination was made as to whether foreclosure proceedings might have been instituted in the future. The striking of this language, however, does not prove that the SBA was considering possible foreclosure proceedings on Ms. Eason's property. Nor was Mr. Schwartz's testimony persuasive enough to reject the findings of the court on the Eason Complaint. The court concluded that Mr. Schwartz told Ms. Eason that "the only way to save her home from foreclosure" would be to execute notes and mortgages in favor of Paramount. Ms. Eason executed the suggested notes and mortgages and they were recorded. Although the notes and mortgages were executed on terms which Ms. Eason accepted, the court concluded that "no consideration" passed from Paramount to Ms. Eason for the notes or mortgages. The court also concluded that Ms. Eason executed the notes and mortgages because of the misrepresentation concerning the SBA by Mr. Schwartz. The court found that when Ms. Eason notified Mr. Schwartz that her payments on the note she had executed to Paramount were more than she could afford, the notes and mortgages were cancelled and a satisfaction was recorded. The court also found that after cancelling the notes and mortgages, Mr. Schwartz incorrectly told Ms. Eason that "the only way left to save her home from imminent foreclosure by the Small Business Administration" would be to execute a Warranty Deed conveying the fee simple interest in Ms. Eason's home to him. Mr. Schwartz also told Ms. Eason that, pursuant to a document titled a "Disclosure", he would grant Ms. Eason and her mother a life estate in the property. Mr. Schwartz was also to pay Ms. Eason $1,000.00 and to pay real estate taxes on the property pursuant to the Disclosure. Ms. Eason executed a Warranty Deed and the Disclosure on June 18, 1985. The Warranty Deed was recorded June 19, 1985. The Disclosure was recorded, but not until September 13, 1985. Although the transaction was explained by Mr. Schwartz to Ms. Eason and she accepted it, the court concluded that Mr. Schwartz's representation that foreclosure by the SBA was imminent was incorrect and that Mr. Schwartz failed to tender the sum of $1,000.00 agreed to in the Disclosure. Although Mr. Schwartz testified that he did attempt to tender the $1,000.00 (less $175.00 in recording fees), he did so after the Eason Complaint had been filed and it was rejected because of the litigation. Therefore, although the Disclosure agreement was executed June 18, 1985, Mr. Schwartz did not attempt to tender the $1,000.00 until some time after the Eason Complaint was filed on November 5, 1985. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had not paid real estate taxes on the property as promised in the Disclosure. Mr. Schwartz explained, however, that the taxes had not been paid because the first real estate taxes due on the property had not become due until after the litigation had been instituted. The court concluded as a matter of law, among other things, the following: That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ, on behalf of Defendant PARAMOUNT FINANCE CORPORATION [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned notes and mortgages. That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned Warranty Deed and "Disclosure." That the Warranty Deed executed by Plaintiff in favor of Defendant was procured by Defendant SCHWARTZ through the exercise of coercion and duress upon Plaintiff. That no consideration passed from Defendant SCHWARTZ to Plaintiff for any of the instruments executed by Plaintiff. That the purported promises made by Defendant SCHWARTZ in the "Disclosure", to the effect that certain debts of the Plaintiff will be paid by SCHWARTZ "if necessary", are illusory promises and impose no obligation upon the Defendant SCHWARTZ. Such promises are therefore unenforceable and do not constitute consideration in support of the subject conveyance. The court ordered the promissory notes, Warranty Deed and the Disclosure cancelled and declared them null and void. The Department's Awareness of the Eason Complaint. There were employees of the Department that were aware of the Eason matter at the time that an administrative action against Mr. Schwartz, which is discussed, infra, was being investigated by the Department. Prior to the action of the Department in this case, the Department has not taken disciplinary action against Mr. Schwartz's individual mortgage broker license as the result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint. The weight of the evidence failed to prove why the Department did not take action against Mr. Schwartz as a result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint until this case arose. The evidence also failed to prove, however, that the Department ever represented to Mr. Schwartz that it would not take any action against his license as a result of the Eason matter. 1990 Administrative Action. At some point during 1987, Mr. Schwartz decided to begin business as a mortgage broker with Mr. Stephen Hertz. Mr. Schwartz intended to discontinue operating through Paramount. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Hertz intended to operate their business as Dollar Mortgage Company (hereinafter referred to as "Dollar"). In June of 1987 Mr. Schwartz prepared an application to register Dollar as the mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz also prepared an endorsement transferring his individual license as principal mortgage broker to Dollar. These documents (hereinafter referred to as the "Dollar Applications"), were provided to Mr. Hertz to file with the Department. Mr. Schwartz, having been advised by Mr. Hertz that the Dollar Applications had been filed, believed that the Dollar Applications had been filed with the Department. Before being informed by the Department that the Dollar Applications had been approved or that his individual license had been renewed, Mr. Schwartz engaged in several mortgage brokerage transactions in the name of Dollar. Engaging in the transactions in the name of Dollar, therefore, constituted acting as a mortgage brokerage business without a license. At some point after the Dollar Applications were filed, Mr. Schwartz contacted Mr. Paul Richman of the Department's Miami office to determine what the status of the applications was. Mr. Schwartz was informed that the Department was in the process of changing the manner in which applications were processed and the process was causing a delay. Mr. Richman advised Mr. Schwartz to check with the Department's Tallahassee office in November, 1987, if the Department had not acted on the Dollar Applications by then. In November, 1987, Mr. Schwartz contacted the Department's Tallahassee office and was informed that the Dollar Applications had never been received. Mr. Schwartz submitted new applications at that time. As a result of the fact that Mr. Schwartz had transacted business before his license had been renewed and had acted in the name of Dollar before receiving approval of Dollar to transact such business, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint, Number 1154-F-5/88 (hereinafter referred to as the "Complaint"), against Mr. Schwartz. The Complaint was entered August 29, 1988. On or about January 23, 1990, the Department and Mr. Schwartz entered into a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Stipulation"), settling the Complaint. Mr. Schwartz admitted in the Stipulation to the following: 3. Eric S. Schwartz admits that he acted as a mortgage broker with an inactive license, and that Dollar acted as a mortgage brokerage business without a valid registration but denies intentional wrongdoing as more fully set forth in Mr. Schwartz's affidavit dated May 30, 1989 which is referenced as if fully set forth at length herein. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Mr. Schwartz was required to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00 for his violation of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. It was also agreed that the Dollar application would be withdrawn and it was. Mr. Schwartz's individual license was, however, renewed. The Stipulation also provided that the Department would make at least one examination of Mr. Schwartz's mortgage brokerage activities during each six month period during the next twenty-four months from the date of the Stipulation. Audits were in fact conducted by the Department. No further charges were brought against Mr. Schwartz as a result of these audits. Additionally, the following agreement was contained in the Stipulation: 13. The Department agrees that, upon execution of this Stipulation, payment of the administrative fine, payment of the restitution ordered, and faithful compliance hereafter by Eric S. Schwartz with all of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, the Department will take no further action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and the rules of the Department as set forth in the Complaint. However, should the Department, in its exercise of its discretion, deem it necessary to take action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and rules of Department occurring after the time period set forth in the Complaint, then, in that event, all such allegations and charges may be used against Eric S. Schwartz in any such subsequent proceeding, if relevant. Eric S. Schwartz understands that there is no order, administrative or judicial, sealing these proceedings in the event of a future administrative complaint regarding activities alleged to occur subsequent to the final date of the timeframe of the investigation of the affairs of Eric S. Schwartz' activities as set forth in the Complaint. See the second paragraph number "13" on page 4-5 of the Stipulation. In March of 1990, the Department entered a Consent Final Order incorporating the Stipulation. The Department has not brought any charges against Mr. Schwartz subsequent to the execution of the Stipulation. The Department has continued to renew Mr. Schwartz's mortgage broker's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order denying Financial Funding's application for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Financial Funding's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 6 and 8. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5. Although the Department offered no such evidence, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that there is "no difference." Hereby accepted. See 8. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 10-11 and 28-29. Accepted in 30, 32-33 and 37. Accepted in 31 and 34. Whether Mr. Hertz advised Mr. Schwartz to start doing business in the name of Dollar is not relevant. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "had no reason to operate improperly." What Mr. Hertz noted in his letter of May 18, 1988 is hearsay. The evidence failed to prove when the documents "had been previously provided . . . ." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "was not at fault." Hereby accepted. See 37 and 38. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz had "nothing to hide." The evidence also failed to prove that the Department's audits were "extremely thorough. What the Department did during their audits of Mr. Schwartz is based upon hearsay. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 39. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12 and 25. See also 17-19 and 21. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the second sentence. The fifth sentence through the end of this proposed paragraph is not relevant. The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Eason was "initially pleased." 20 See 14-15, 19, 21 and 22. 21 See 25-27. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department was aware of the Eason matter for "seven years." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove the third sentence.. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 12. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 13, 21 and 23 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 35. The Stipulation was executed in January, not December. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 40. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 3 and 7. Accepted in 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Highpoint Center, Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Ashley Peacock Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, James W. McKibbon was not licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida (Exhibit 1). MorBanc Financial Corporation was initially registered as a mortgage broker in Florida on February 27, 1989, and remained registered through June 15, 1990 (Exhibit 1). In August 1988, Respondent was employed by Sovereign Savings Bank to procure qualified home purchases needing mortgage money to be lent by Sovereign. MorBanc Financial Corporation was incorporated circa 1988 to become a mortgage brokerage firm. It opened a bank account and an office from funds contributed by its organizers. Respondent was offered shares in MorBanc and was elected president of the company. No evidence was submitted that Respondent was an investor in MorBanc. Thomas Pollak moved to Florida in 1988 and contracted to purchase a residence. The real estate agent with whom he was working recommended he seek a loan through MorBanc which was located in the same building with the real estate agent. Pollak assumed that MorBanc was a licensed mortgage broker in Florida. McKibbon's business card shows him as President of MorBanc Financial Corporation and lists FHA-VA-Conventional -- presumably loans that can be brokered by MorBanc. Respondent never told Pollak that he or MorBanc were mortgage brokers, and no applications for a mortgage loan completed by Pollak contained the name MorBanc. Instead, all of the application forms used were those used by Sovereign Savings Bank, and the loan application was submitted to Sovereign Savings Bank. The bank paid Respondent for procuring loans. MorBanc, prior to becoming registered as a mortgage broker, processed no loans from clients procured by Respondent McKibbon and paid McKibbon no commission or other compensation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against James W. McKibbon that he acted as a mortgage broker without being licensed to do so in Florida be dismissed. ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings Not Accepted. 2. Respondent helped set up the furniture in the office that was provided by one of the financial founders of MorBanc. Not accurate to call Respondent "instrumental" in this task. Teresa Tyler was the real estate agent procuring the contract with Pollak. No evidence was submitted that she was Respondent's real estate salesperson. While Pollak testified that Respondent mentioned he (Respondent) could work with more than one lender, the only lender mentioned by Respondent was Sovereign, and the loan was processed through Sovereign. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Office of Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 James W. McKibbon 5770 Dartmouth Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The pleadings in this case, Petitioner's Notice of Intention to Suspend" and Respondent's "Petition for Formal Hearing" establish the following uncontroverted facts: William D. McCaffrey is a mortgage solicitor holding license number HK0007207. The Department of Banking and Finance is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, including the duty to suspend the license of those persons registered under the act for violations of the terms therein. William D. McCaffrey has been convicted of a federal offense and is presently in federal custody at the Federal Correctional Institute in Montgomery, Alabama. On November 13, 1985, Respondent pled guilty to "Interstate transportation of fraudulently obtained credit cards, in violation of title 15 U.S. Code, Section 1644(b) as charged in count 6 of the Indictment". (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) Count 6 of the indictment provides: Count Six On or about December 13, 1982, defendants WILLIAM D. McCAFFREY and WILLIAM BARTRAM III did knowingly, with unlawful and fraud- ulent intent, transport and cause to be transported in interstate commerce from Clarkston, Georgia, by way of Nevada, to the District of Arizona, a fraudulently obtained American Express Credit Card in the name of William Smith, knowing said credit card to have been fraudulently obtained. All in violation of Title IS, United States Code, Section 1644(b), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in case #CR 85-53 PHX adjudged William D. McCaffrey guilty as charged and convicted, sentenced him to imprisonment for 5 years, and ordered that he pay a fine of $10,000 and make restitution to American Express in the amount of $5,481.27. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2 Judgement and Probation/Commitment Order)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that a final order be entered suspending Respondent's mortgage solicitor's license for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert K. Good, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Clyde Taylor, Jr., Esquire 1105 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Cline was licensed by the State of Florida as a mortgage broker and held license number HB 0017832 from January 13, 1986 through May 31, 1987. During this period of time, Respondent Cline was president and principal mortgage broker for MAC at the 4045 Tamiami Trail, Port Charlotte location. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. The Respondent Henderson was also licensed as a mortgage broker and held license number HA 0007460 from March 29, 19856 through June 19, 19889. Respondent Henderson conducted business through MAC as the corporation's vice president. The Respondent was a director and shareholder of the corporation. In response to a consumer complaint, the Department initiated an examination of the books and records maintained at the Port Charlotte location of MAC on April 21, 1987. The conduct of the Respondents in their business dealings as mortgage brokers with MAC was investigated as part of the Department's review process. The examination and investigation involved the time period from March 1, 1986 to June 1, 1987. The written examination report prepared by the Department's financial examiner concludes that the Respondents, as officers and directors of MAC, financially compensated MAC employees who were not licensed under the Mortgage Brokerage Act for soliciting or negotiating mortgage loans. Six alleged mortgage solicitors were named in the report. The loan packages of seventeen mortgages, along with MAC's commission reports, were submitted as evidence to support the conclusion. A review of the documentation, along with a review of the commission checks and the testimony of Kimberly L. Johnson (nee Steed) revealed that the documents identified as "commission reports" were not indicators of commission funds received by the six employees named in the complaint. These employees were paid on a set salaried basis. They were hired by MAC to perform the ministerial acts of taking or typing applications for loans under the direction of a mortgage broker. The use of these employees' names in the commission reports incidentally shows which employee assisted in the completion of forms that resulted in commissions to the licensed brokers who completed the mortgage financing transactions. This interpretation of the "commission reports" is clearly supported by the first page of the reports, Petitioner's Exhibits 17 and Commission checks on the loans, were issued to the licensed mortgage brokers. The evidence demonstrates that Rebecca Henderson, who was one of the employees performing ministerial acts, on one occasion acted beyond her authority and "locked in" the interest rate for a mortgage applicant while she was completing the application. The Department did not present evidence to show that either Respondent Henderson or Respondent Cline had actual knowledge of the employee's actions. Neither licensee was the mortgage broker directing the employee at the time the incident occurred. During the course of the Department's examination, the conclusion was reached that MAC advertised in a newspaper that the corporation was a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." The Department alleges that MAC is not a "mortgage banker" and a "FNMA lender." At hearing, Kenneth Moulin, a former shareholder of MAC, testified that the goal of MAC was to become a bank. The corporation had money which was used to fund two mortgage loans with MAC as mortgagor. Petitioner's Exhibit 34, which was loan documentation on the residential loan application of William T. Martel and Lora A. Martel, names MAC as the lender. The documents also include FNMA forms used by FNMA lenders. The examination report concluded that MAC did not maintain records for a five-year period. The company started doing business in March 1986. Records were continuously maintained from MAC's inception. An advertisement placed in the newspaper, The Monday Sun, which was published on April 28, 1986, failed to include the phrase that MAC was a "licensed mortgage broker." The advertisement was placed by Respondent Henderson. In mitigation, it should be noted that Respondent Henderson had his mortgage brokerage license for less than one month and was new to the business as it is regulated by the Department. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that Respondent Cline was aware of the improper advertisement. Other documents provided which purported to be advertisements were not authenticated. They lacked mastheads or headings which could sufficiently identify the place, date or kind of publication. As part of the mortgage financing transactions involved in the sampling of mortgages conducted by the Department, MAC collected fees from applicants for the preparation of documents and reports. Specific fees were quoted to applicants and receipts were clearly marked to demonstrate that the fees were non-refundable to applicants. In its bookkeeping entries, MAC continuously failed to maintain ledger entries which showed that the fees had been assessed on each application, and that the monies had been used for the intended purposes for which they had been collected. In the sampling of mortgages reviewed by the Department, MAC retained money assessed for discount points. The money was not used to reduce the interest rate on mortgages closed, as represented to the borrowers by MAC. Instead, the mortgages were immediately assigned and the discount assessment was retained by MAC for its own, undisclosed use.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Henderson be issued a reprimand for failure to place the words "licensed mortgage broker" in the April 28, 1986 advertisement. That all other charges against the Respondents be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerkk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2202 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. See HO #2. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Document speaks for itself. Also, this is established as proper evidence under Section 494.051, Florida Statutes, so these findings are redundant. Rejected. Report speaks for itself. Accepted. Accepted. Reject the phrase "negotiation." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Reject the phrase "negotiate." Contrary to fact. See HO #5. 21.-24. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Kimberly L. Johnson is the same person as Kimberly L. Steed who has been licensed as a mortgage broker since September 29, 1986. 25.&26. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See above. This rendering of the testimony is rejected by the fact finder. Accepted. &29. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5 and HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #5. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Steed completed ministerial acts. See HO #5. Accept the first sentence. Reject the rest as contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. Repetitive. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Appli- cation fees were not set up as entrusted funds. See HO #12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Repetitive. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Cline was not the mortgage broker on any of the transactions presented at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #13. Respondent Cline's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. The records presented were found to be reliable when compared with the originals presented simultaneously by Respondent Henderson, although those were not officially placed in evidence. Rejected. See above. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Calls for legal conclusion. Rejected. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Irrelevant. See Section 494.051, Florida Statutes. However, the competency of the examiner was considered in the factual determinations made by the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Not listed as factual finding. As a Conclu- sion of Law, the Hearing Officer cannot rule on this matter. Respondent Henderson's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See preliminary matters. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Unable to rule on proposed finding. Insufficient. 7. Accepted. See HO #5. 8. Accepted. See HO #8. 9.&10. Reject. Insufficient. 11. Accepted. See HO #12. 12. Rejected. Insufficient. 13. Accepted. 14. Accepted. See HO #12. 15. Accepted. See HO #2. 16. Rejected. Conclusionary. 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. 19.-30. Not listed as factual findings. As Conclusions of Law, Hearing Officer cannot rule on these matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsie M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 33801 Ann Mitchell, Esquire GERALD DUNCAN ENGVALSON & MITCHELL Foxworthy Professional Building Suite 101 1601 Jackson Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Floyd G. Henderson Post Office Box 2875 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
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
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc. was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0218821 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate. Respondent Elliot Rosen held real estate broker's license number 0075258 issued by petitioner and was the qualifying officer of Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc. Respondents Stanleigh M. Franklin and Maria C. Franklin were licensed real estate salesmen in Rosen's office having been issued license numbers 0318042 and 0370308, respectively. The firm is located at 8120 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33155. On an undisclosed date Robert W. and Carol A. Bush listed for sale with Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc., a residential property located at 8295 Southwest 153rd Street, Miami. The initial asking price was $119,000, but this was later reduced to $112,000. In April 1984, Joseph and Maria Yanes were in the process of selling their home and were consequently seeking to purchase a new residence. Both are educated persons, and Mr. Yanes has a college degree. Mr. Yanes read a real estate advertisement which advertised the Bush's property. They contacted Rosen Realty, Inc. and spoke with Maria Franklin. After inspecting the house with Maria, the Franklins met with the Yanes on April 15, 1985, for the purpose of preparing and executing an offer to purchase the house. Joseph Yanes made clear to Stanleigh Franklin that his primary concern was obtaining a mortgage with monthly payments that did not exceed $1000 per month. Otherwise, he would not be able to purchase the property. Stanleigh was familiar with a new mortgage loan program offered by a local lender (American International Mortgage Company) known as the "7.5 magnet mortgage" which offered a monthly payment for the first three years at a 7.5 percent interest rate. Stanleigh computed the principal and interest payments under this plan to be $711.55 per month. When estimated taxes and insurance were added in the total payment came to approximately $850 per month. He also advised that a mortgage insurance premium would be charged each month, which he estimated to be $50 to $60 per month. This still totaled less than the $960 or $970 which the Yanes stated their existing mortgage to be. The Yanes were told that because of the low interest rate (7.5 percent) during the first 36 months, there would be negative amortization during that period of time. In other words, the principal amount owed would actually increase rather than decrease during the first three years since interest on the note was accruing at a higher rate (13 percent). Finally, Franklin advised the Yanes that a 5 percent down payment was required with this type of mortgage and that their deposit should equal this amount to qualify for the loan. The Yanes did not indicate any dissatisfaction with this type of financing, or that they did not understand how the plan worked, particularly with respect to the negative amortization. They agreed to make an offer of $107,000 on the property, to give a $500 deposit that day, and an additional $4850 later on which equated to 5 percent of the purchase price. The contract itself made no reference to the 7.5 percent financing, but provided only that the buyers would obtain a new first mortgage for the balance owed on the $107,000 purchase price. Throughout these negotiations, there was no misrepresentation of facts by Franklin concerning the mortgage or amount of deposit required. The Yanes' offer was quickly presented by the Franklins to the sellers who accepted the offer within the next few days. The Yanes then gave an additional $4850 deposit around May 1 which was deposited in Rosen's escrow account. On May 7, they filed a loan application with American International Mortgage Company and gave a check in the amount of $185 to have an appraisal made and a credit report prepared. At that time, the loan officer explained to Joseph Yanes in detail how the magnet mortgage program worked and that there would be negative amortization under this plan. The meeting lasted for an hour and a half and Yanes did not express surprise at how the mortgage worked, or that he did not understand its concept. An appraisal was then made, and a credit check run on Mr. Yanes. However, the lender was unable to confirm any credit information on Mrs. Yanes because her employer refused to return the employment verification form. On June 20, 1984, the lender sent a denial notice to the Yanes because of its inability to obtain information regarding Mrs. Yanes. The Yanes made no other efforts to obtain financing on the property. After they executed the contract to purchase, the Yanes engaged counsel in early May to represent them at closing. Their attorney (Lisa Wilson) called all pertinent parties, including the Franklins and Rosen to learn the details of the mortgage. After having the details explained to them again, the Yanes advised counsel that they wished to cancel the contract. On May 23, 1984, Wilson sent a certified letter to Stanleigh Franklin advising that because the financing arrangements had been misrepresented to her clients they were cancelling the contract. She also demanded a return of their deposit plus interest. Just prior to the receipt of the certified letter, Joseph Yanes also telephoned Stanleigh Franklin and demanded a return of his deposit. This was the first time Franklin suspected the deal had gone awry. Shortly after this, the Yanes contacted petitioner to file a complaint against respondents. When Mr. Bush learned that the Yanes were not honoring the contract, upon advice of counsel, Bush made a claim on the $5,350 deposit for breach of contract. Faced with conflicting demands for the deposit, Rosen contacted petitioner to determine how the deposit should be disbursed. The matter was eventually referred by petitioner to its local office in Miami for investigation in October 1984. On November 27, 1984, counsel for petitioner advised Rosen that because of the pending complaint of the Yanes, petitioner could not issue an escrow disbursement order. However, he was told of the remaining two alternatives for resolving the dispute prescribed in Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. A complaint for interpleader was later filed in circuit court by agreement of counsel for the Yanes, Bush, and Rosen. That complaint is still pending. Rosen, as broker, was never personally involved in the transaction until a complaint with petitioner was filed. He stood to gain no commission on the sale since the Franklins were working on a "100 percent basis" and were to receive the entire commission. Rosen has been licensed for some thirty-one years and has had no prior disciplinary action in all that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of June, 1985.
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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt is the President of Respondent Action Mortgage Corporation and is the person designated to act on behalf of said corporation under the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Action Mortgage Corporation currently holds a mortgage brokerage license. The individual mortgage broker license issued to respondent Clampitt expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. Respondent Joseph W. Langford currently holds a license as a mortgage solicitor for and on behalf of Home Mortgage Investment Corporation. His prior individual mortgage broker license expired on August 31, 1980, and has not been renewed. COUNT I The respondents were counter codefendants in a civil suit filed in the Circuit Court of Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of the Florida in and for Pinellas County, which case was numbered 78-12033-18 and styled Action Mortgage Corporation, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Denture Services, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants. On February 8, 1980, a Final Judgment was entered in that proceeding by Circuit Court Judge David Seth Walker. Judge Walker found, as a matter of fact, that a limited confidential/fiduciary relationship existed between Langford and the counter-plaintiffs, and opined that certain activities on the part of the individual counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The Court, inter alis, awarded the counter-plaintiffs Final Judgment in the nominal sum of $1.00, plus costs. It was noted that the claim of the counter-plaintiffs for punitive damages had previously been denied. Subsequent to the Final Judgment enteed in Case No. 78-12033-18, the counter-plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing on the matter of punitive damages, since the Court had noted in its Final Judgment that the activities of the counter-defendants were "bedecked with the badge of fraud." The counter- defendants (respondents herein) also moved the Court to alter or amend its Final Judgment so as to remove the fraud language quoted above. By Order filed on March 10, 1980, both motions were denied by Judge Walker. Judge Walker's deposition was taken on August 22, 1980, and was received into evidence in this proceeding as petitioner's Exhibit 9. Referring to the language in the Final Judgment "bedecked with the badge of fraud," Judge Walker makes the following comments: "I do not interpret that as a finding of fraud absolute, but just that there were indicia of fraud." (p.4) "But I did not consider this to be an absolute finding of fraud. I think I mentioned that on one of the motions that the counter-plaintiffs made to reconsider the judgment of $1.00 or the refusal to grant punitive damages. I reiterated at that hearing that I found that it was an indicia, but I did not go so far in my own mind as to specifically find fraud." (p. 4) "If I had wanted to find specifically that they were in fact guilty of fraud, I would have said as much. The phrase, in my mind, 'bedecked with a badge of fraud,' is meant to suggest the indicia of fraud. Fraud is a legal conclusion that must be based upon several legally accepted circumstances. And in law school we learned the term, 'badges of fraud.' But a badge of fraud does not per se constitute fraud. I didn't feel that I needed to go too deeply in the questions, because of my finding that the counter-plaintiffs had not in fact suffered any real damage." (pp. 7 and 8) "I listed a certain series of circmustances and activities which had taken place, rather specifically. And I found that these activities and circumstances were bedecked by the badge of fraud which is admittedly a little bit flowery for normal language, but that's what I said. I did not specifically find fraud. Fraud always carries with it the badges of fraud in and of it- self does not collaterally, and on the other hand mean that fraud exists. I did not go that far in this particular judgment. I did not feel I had to." (pp. 18 and 19) "I did not feel that it was necessary for the Court to delve into the ultimate determination of fraud." (p. 20) "I do not perceive that my final judgment made an absolute finding of fraud. Again, the phrase, 'badge of fraud,' simply menas to me an indicia of fraud, and I'm confortable with the finding that that indicia is there. But as far as a finding of fraud is concerned, I did not proceed to that point, and it's not there." (pp. 20 and 21) COUNT II In 1978, Dorothy L. Jones and Byron A. Jones were the owners of real property located at 2656 Granada Circle East in St. Petersburg, Florida. The first mortgage on that property held by Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc. or the Mortgage Corporation of the South, was in default and a foreclosure action, and is pendens against the property had been filed. The monthly mortgage payments were approximately $225. At that time, Dorothy Jones was separated from her husband, lived in the home with her five minor children and was having financial difficulties. Having seen a newspaper advertisement, Dorothy Jones contacted the Respondents in an effort to obtain a second mortgage or additional funds with which to pay her debts and preserve her homestead. Neither of the Respondents agreed to make a second mortgage loan to Mrs. Jones. Instead, they agreed to make an outright purchase of the Jones's residence and lease the property back to Dorothy Jones at a monthly payment which approximated her prior monthly mortgage payment. The lease payments were later increased to $275 per month due to the loss of homestead exemption on the property. It was Mrs. Jones' understanding that she would be given the opportunity to repurchase the home at less than fair market value though she may have to pay a down payment and higher monthly payments. No appraisal was performed on the property. The closing of the transaction took place at a title company, independent of the Respondents. Mrs. Jones understood that she was signing a deed to the property and other documents transferring title to Respondents. The property was purchased by the Respondents in February of 1978 for $23,656.54 and the transfer was made subject to the mortgage to Molten, Allen and Williams, Inc., in the amount of $21,848.44. No funds were paid to Mr. or Mrs. Jones at the time of closing. During the months which followed, Dorothy Jones fell far behind in her lease payments to the Respondents. In May of 1979, Respondent Langford notified Mrs. Jones that the property owners had elected to sell the property in the near future, and advised her to contact his office if she was still interested in purchasing the property. In July of 1979, Dorothy Jones filed a Complaint against the Respondents in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County seeking a declaratory decree as to her rights under the aforementioned deed, lease and oral agreement to repurchase the property. (Civil No. 79-7307-17). Mrs. Jones was represented by an attorney in that action. By Order filed on July 29, 1980, the Circuit Court approved the terms and conditions of a Stipulation entered into by the Respondents and Mrs. Jones whereby Mrs. Jones was given the opportunity to purchase the subject property from the Respondents for $32,000 within 90 days, and was also required to pay back rental payments to the Respondents. For some reason not clear from the evidence adduced in the proceeding, Mrs. Jones did not repurchase the property from the Respondents. By Final Judgment filed on October 15, 1980, Mrs. Jones' claim against the Respondents was dismissed with prejudice and Respondents were awarded a judgment against Mrs. Jones in the amount of $2,887.50. Apparently, an eviction action in the County Court for Pinellas County resulted in the award of possession of the home to the Respondents. Mrs. Jones vacated the subject property in October of 1980. In April of 1981, Respondents sold the subject property to Harold and Peralita Odlam for a purchase price of $41,7000. COUNT III Respondent Clampitt was licensed as an individual mortgage broker for the years 1978 and 1979. His 1979 license expired on August 31, 1979, as did the license of Action Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Clampitt made an attempt to renew his individual mortgage broker license on October 16, 1979. The renewal license for Action Mortgage Corporation also bears the date of October 16, 1979. During the period of time between August 31, 1979 (the date upon which his individual mortgage broker license expired) and October 16, 1979 (the date upon which said renewal license was issued), respondent, Clampitt, as an individual mortgage broker, received at least three mortgage brokerage fees or commissions. A broker is considered to be licensed by the petitioner when a completed application form accompanied by the correct fee is received by the petitioner. It is the petitioner's practice to mail out renewal application to its approximately 6,500 licensees on July 15 of each year with the request that they be returned by August 15. All licenses expire on August 31 and are reissued for the following year to be effective from September 1 to August 31. Those applications which are received by the petitioner after August 31 bear a different license date. The correct amount to be remitted for the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license was $125-- a $75 license fee and a $50 guaranty fund fee. The $190 check received by the petitioner from the respondent on or before August 31, 1979, was accompanied by three renewal application cards. The petitioner did not apply $125 of the $190 to the renewal of respondent Clampitt's individual license because petitioner could not ascertain how the respondent desired to have the funds applied. Although a small minority of licensees do not renew their licenses in a timely fashion, it is not the practice of the petitioner to directly notify a licensee that his license has expired. Respondent Clampitt did hold a license with an effective date of September 13, 1979, as an additional broker for Fickling and Walker, Inc. in Winter Park, Florida. Under this license, respondent Clampitt would have no authority to act individually or on behalf of anyone other than Fickling and Walker, Inc. COUNT IV Respondent Clampitt arranged for a loan to a Mr. and Mrs. Fink. When examining the respondent's books, petitioner's financial examiner was unable to account for an apparent overcharge of $13.80 for credit life insurance on the loan. The examiner did not examine the loan closing documents with regard to this transaction. The evidence establishes that there had been a clerical error in the respondent's office concerning this transaction, that the cost of the credit life insurance had been miscalculated and that respondent Clampitt was entitled to the $13.80. COUNT V It is the practice of the respondent Clampitt to interview his clients over the telephone, look at the involved property and then, if he agrees to make a loan, send the client to a title insurance company to sign the necessary papers. These papers include a loan closing statement, the required RESPA statement and a recision notice which allows the customer to cancel the transaction within 72 hours without cost or obligation. Thereafter, generally five to seven days later, the customer returns to the title company to receive the loan proceeds. Respondent Clampitt does not take deposits and most often does not even meet this clients on a face-to-face basis. All borrower disclosures and rights required by law are provided respondent's clients by the title insurance company.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on March 23, 1981, against Joseph W. Langford be DISMISSED; The Administrative Charges and Complaint filed on February 3, 1981, against Action Mortgage Corporation be DISMISSED; Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Charges and Complaint filed against Ronald E. Clampitt on February 3, 1981, be DISMISSED; and Respondent Ronald E. Clampitt be found guilty of accepting fees at a time when his individual license had expired, but, because of the unintentional violation of the pertinent statutory provisions, no disciplinary action be imposed for this offense. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter W. Wood Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Dew and Jay Emory Wood Harris, Barrett and Dew Post Office Drawer 1441 600 Florida National Bank Building St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
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 =================================================================
