The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, is charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Diko Investments, Inc. ("Diko") conducted business as a mortgage broker in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Dieter Kolberg ("Kolberg") was an officer, director, and acted as principal mortgage broker for Diko. Kolberg passed the mortgage broker's examination on May 28, 1985. Diko was issued a license as a mortgage broker with Kolberg as its principal broker on June 26, 1985 (license NO. HB-16568) Prior to May 28, 1985, Diko ran advertisements soliciting investors for mortgage opportunities. These ads included Kolberg's home telephone number. Prior to May 28, 1985, Kolberg/Diko entered into a business relationship with Michael D. Cirullo, a licensed mortgage broker, to "co-broke" mortgage transactions. Pursuant to their agreement, Cirullo represented the borrower/mortgagor while Kolberg obtained and represented the lender/mortgagee. Kolberg and Cirullo solicited and negotiated at least two loans prior to May 28, 1985. Kolberg acted in expectation of being paid as a mortgage broker. Cirullo remitted 50 percent of the commissions earned on these transactions to Diko. Diko stationery included the phrase "Licensed Mortgage Bankers." Neither Diko nor Kolberg has been licensed as a "mortgage banker." In August and September of 1985, investors, Marcel and Ida Barber, responded to a Diko advertisement which offered a 16 percent interest mortgage loan secured by prime residential real estate. The Barbers were interested in a safe, high interest yielding investment and requested more information from Diko. On September 23, 1985, Kolberg wrote to the Barbers to outline the following business policies of Diko: The first objective of the Diko lending program was "The Safety of the Investor's Capital." Any investment was to be secured by a mortgage on prime residential real estate clear of all liens with the exception of a first mortgage where a second mortgage would be given. Investors would be issued mortgagee title insurance to insure against loss due to defects in title to the mortgaged property. Investors would be issued fire and hazard insurance to cover any losses in the event of fire or storm. Subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid letter, the Barbers decided to invest $25,000 in a mortgage through Diko/Kolberg. This initial transaction proceeded satisfactorily and the objectives addressed in paragraph 10 above were met. In late December, 1985, the Barbers advised Kolberg that they would be willing to invest an additional $50,000 in early January, 1986. The Barbers expected the transaction to be handled in the same manner as their prior investment through Diko. After reviewing two or three loan proposals, the Barbers chose to invest in a loan to Tony Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. The loan was to be secured by a second mortgage on property at 713-717 "L" Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. The "L" Street property consisted of a 24-unit apartment complex and an adjacent laundry facility. Kolberg accompanied the Barbers to view the property. During discussions with the Barbers regarding the proposed investment, Kolberg made the following false material representations: That the property had a high occupancy; That rental payments were guaranteed or subsidized by a government program; That the asset-to-debt ratio for the property was acceptable; and That a proposed expansion of the laundry facility would further enhance the security of the loan. Financial statements of the borrower (Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc.) did not include all obligations against the "L" Street property. Diko/Kolberg did not give the Barbers an accurate or complete statement of the financial condition of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew the information on the statement was incomplete. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers the high rate of crime in the area which compromised the security of the "L" Street investment. Kolberg knew of the crime problem in the area. Diko/Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that foreclosure proceedings had been instituted against the "L" Street property. Kolberg knew of the foreclosure action as well as the delinquency on other obligations. Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that he represented, as trustee, a Kolberg family company which would directly benefit from the Barber loan. The Barber loan would satisfy a mortgage held by Kolberg, as trustee, on the subject property, which mortgage was in default and in the process of foreclosure (the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure). Kolberg did not disclose to the Barbers that another mortgage held on the "L" Street property (David Marsh loan) was also in default. A subordination agreement was required to be executed by Marsh in order for the Barber/Medici loan to close. Marsh agreed to subordinate his mortgage position for approximately $3,000 in arrear payments. Marsh was owed approximately $125,000 but chose to subordinate because by doing so he was able to recoup a small amount of what he considered a lost investment. Kolberg knew of Marsh's situation and did not advise the Barbers. The Barber loan to Medici/Automatic Concrete, Inc. closed on January 18, 1986. The Barbers delivered a check for $53,000 payable to the title company chosen by Diko. Neither Diko nor Kolberg gave the title company, Manor Title, closing instructions to protect the lenders' interests. Kolberg did, however, instruct the title company to list expenses relating to the Ropet Anlagen foreclosure against the Medici loan. Proceeds from the closing, in the amount of $50,000 were paid to Kolberg, as trustee for "Ropet Anlagen," and deposited to an account by that name. The name "Ropet Anlagen" translates to "Ropet Investments." Kolberg handles all transactions for this Kolberg family company in the United States. (Kolberg has two sons, Robin and Peter, from a former marriage. The name "Ropet" may derive from their names.) Kolberg's former wife, Patricia Kolberg, owns an interest in Ropet Anlagen. Regular monthly payments were made by Kolberg to Patricia Kolberg on a Ropet Anlagen account. Many of the checks drawn on the Ropet Anlagen account were for personal expenses of Kolberg or his business. The first mortgage on the "L" Street property was 45 days overdue on January 13, 1986. Kolberg knew of this delinquency but did not advise the Barbers. To the contrary, Diko gave the Barbers an estoppel notice from a prior closing showing the first mortgage to be current. The first mortgagee ultimately foreclosed its mortgage and the Barbers lost their entire investment. The Barbers did not receive a fire and hazard insurance policy to cover losses in the event of fire or storm for the "L" Street property. The Barbers did not receive a mortgagee title insurance policy until March, 1986, by which time the first mortgage was further in default. Additionally, the mortgagee policy disclosed a financing statement and a collateral assignment of rents recorded prior to the Barbers' mortgage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller, enter a Final Order revoking the mortgage broker license issued to Dieter Kolberg and Diko Investments, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted; however, Kolberg's interest when financing with funds he controlled was only on a temporary, interim basis. The activities were conducted with Diko to receive a commission, therefore requiring a license. Paragraphs 7-15 are accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13. Paragraphs 17-18 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 14, 18, 22. Paragraphs 19-27 are accepted. Paragraph 28 is rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Paragraphs 29-42 are accepted. The detail of Petitioner's finding is unnecessary to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 43-45 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraphs 48-52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 54 is accepted. Paragraph 55 is accepted to the extent found in findings of fact paragraphs 20, 21. Paragraphs 56-57 are accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 21. Paragraphs 59-63 are accepted but unnecessary. Paragraphs 64-65 are accepted. Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondents: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Those portions of paragraph 2 which set forth Respondent's dates of testing and licensure are accepted, the balance is rejected as an erroneous conclusions of law. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight ofevidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 5 is rejected as the transaction was solicited with Kolberg's company, Diko, participating as a mortgage broker. Paragraph 6 is accepted but irrelevant to the issue. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of theevidence and law. Paragraph 8 is accepted but does not mitigate, as a matter of law, Respondent's improper useage of the phrase. Paragraphs 9-11 are accepted; however the detail of thefindings is unnecessary and immaterial to the issues of thiscause. Paragraphs 12-14 are accepted to the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12, 13 the balance is rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Paragraph 15 is rejected as unnecessary, relevant portions having previously been addressed. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraph 18 is rejected to the extent it qualifies Barber as a "Sophisticated Investor." The record is clear Mr. Barber was experienced in the laws of France; however, he relied on Kolberg completely as to both transactions which took place in Palm Beach. Moreover, Mr. Barber's useage and understanding of the English language was suspect. He could hardly be considered a "sophisticated investor" in light of the total circumstances. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 13, the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Moreover, it is found that the only times of capacity occupancy (which were limited) were due to temporary, transient, undesirable tenants who may have directly affected the crime problem. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraphs 23-24 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 25 is accepted but is unnecessary. The crime problem was there prior to closing and was undisclosed to Barber. That it worsened after closing only assured the disclosure should have been made. Paragraphs 26-35 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Many of the facts asserted here are based on testimony given by Kolberg. Respondents presume that testimony to be truthful, accurate, and candid. I found the opposite to be true. Paragraph 36 is accepted but does not mitigate Respondents' responsibilities to have completed the items at closing. Paragraph 37 is accepted with same proviso as above paragraph 36, ruling #22). Paragraphs 38-39 are rejected. See ruling #21. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted but see findings of fact paragraph 21 as to Kolberg's useage of Ropet funds for personal expenses. Paragraphs 42-43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence S. Krieger, Esquire 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Keith A. Seldin, Esquire 1340 U.S. Highway #1, Suite 106 Jupiter, Florida 33469 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing grade on the September 28, 1993, mortgage broker examination.
Findings Of Fact On September 28, 1993, Petitioner took the mortgage broker examination. To pass the examination, a candidate must receive a minimum score of 75. Petitioner was advised that she had achieved a score of only 74. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the examination questions and her answers thereto, and she did so on October 15, 1993. She questioned her failure to receive credit for ten of her answers on that examination and provided written explanation for why she believed her answers to those questions were correct. Petitioner's written challenges and explanations regarding her answers to those ten questions were reviewed by a subject matter expert and by a psychometrician employed by National Assessment Institute, the company responsible for creating and administering the Florida mortgage broker examination. Both experts determined that Petitioner's answers to those ten questions were incorrect and that her explanations therefor were without merit. Petitioner was advised that she was entitled to no extra credit for her answers on that examination, and this proceeding ensued. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner admitted and agreed that the answers which she had chosen for questions numbered 2, 20, and 23 of the examination were incorrect. Petitioner, accordingly, withdrew her challenge to the grading of her answers to those three questions and proceeded forward regarding her answers to seven questions only. Petitioner chose answer "D" to question numbered one. The correct answer was "A". Petitioner was not able to correctly answer that question because she was unfamiliar with a term used in the question. That term is found in the "Fannie Mae" guidelines. Petitioner's answer is not correct. Petitioner chose answer "A" to question numbered 19, but the correct answer is "C". Petitioner's suggestion that both answers are correct is not persuasive. Petitioner chose only part of the correct answer, and multiple choice "C" contained all of the information necessary for a correct answer. Partial credit is not given for partial answers on the mortgage broker examination; rather, to receive credit for an answer, a candidate must choose the answer which completely responds to the question. Since Petitioner's chosen answer was an incomplete answer, her answer was not correct. Petitioner thought that "C" was the correct answer to question numbered 33, but only answer "A" was correct. That basic question regarding title insurance and the correct answer were taken from the Handbook of the Florida Association of Mortgage Brokers, one of the required reference materials. Petitioner chose answer "D" for question numbered 35, but only answer "C" was correct. As with question numbered 33, Petitioner based her answer on her experience as a real estate broker in New York. The question and answer, however, can be found in the "Fannie Mae" guidelines. As her answer to question numbered 36, Petitioner chose answer "A". However, the only correct answer was answer "C". Petitioner's answer involved a different type of insurance than the kind involved in the question. Petitioner believed that choice "B" was the correct answer to question numbered 59. However, the correct answer was choice "D". The question tested Petitioner's understanding of the definitions found in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's choice of a more generic term was incorrect. As her answer to question numbered 98, Petitioner chose "C", but only "B" was a correct answer. This question used the same term found in question numbered one. Since Petitioner did not understand that term, which is found in the "Fannie Mae" guidelines, she did not know the correct answer to either question numbered one or question numbered 98. Petitioner is not entitled to extra credit for her answers to any of the questions challenged in this proceeding. Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on the September 28, 1993, mortgage broker examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing score on the September 28, 1993, mortgage broker examination and denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 31st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4a have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, and 39 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 8, 10, 12-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, and 41 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Helena Weisfeld Chirico c/o Robert Weisfeld 2739 Parkview Drive Hallandale, Florida 33009 Helena Weisfeld Chirico Post Office Box 800 Hunter, New York 12442 John D. O'Neill, Esquire Assistant General Counsel The Comptroller's Office 111 Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 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 Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination to be licensed as a mortgage broker be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29th day January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott William Katz 361 Midpines Road Palm Springs, Florida 33461 Lawrence S. Krieger Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Office of Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller, State of Florida The Capital Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Sutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact In his application for registration as a mortgage broker (Exhibit 2), David Stain, Petitioner, in response to question 7 "Have you any judgments against you?" answered "No". By letter dated May 12, 1980 (Exhibit 1), Respondent advised Stein that background investigation revealed numerous judgments against him and stated it would he necessary for Stein to advise why he chose to answer question 7 in the negative. After receiving no response from Stein, Respondent, on 2 July 1980, entered a Final Order denying Stein's application for registration as a mortgage broker. Grounds given in this Order were based upon numerous unsatisfied judgments entered against Stein in Pennsylvania. Exhibit 3, a composite exhibit of court records from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, shows judgements entered against David Stein and in favor of: Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (2), Diner's Club, Ford Motor Credit Company, Charles Arnold, Alan Shaffer, Carl Kronander, and CNA Financial Corporation.
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 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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent as a Mortgage Solicitor should be suspended for violation of Sections 494.05 (1) (a) & (b), Florida Statutes, Rule 3-3.07(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 494.05(1)(g), Florida Statutes. At the commencement of the hearing, Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the proceedings by reason of Petitioner's failure to provide witness statements of Charles R. Burke & Kathryn C. Burke, pursuant to a letter from Respondent's counsel to the Deputy Director, Division of Finance, dated August 26, 1975, requesting copies of any witness statements obtained in the course of Petitioner'S investigation. Respondent not having previously sought to compel discovery in accordance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion was denied. At this point, Respondent's counsel announced that he had been instructed by his client, who was not present at the hearing, to leave the hearing room and take no further part in the proceedings if the motion was denied. This being the case, Respondent's counsel departed and the hearing was then conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a Mortgage Solicitor with the firm of Hartwell and Associates, Inc., from May 27, 1974 to July 24, 1974, when his license was returned to Petitioner for cancellation by that firm. On September 13, 1974, Respondent was issued a Mortgage Solicitor's License with ABC Investment Corporation. Records of the Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, Division of Finance, Department of Banking and Finance, failed to reveal any other license as a mortgage broker or mortgage solicitor having been issued to Respondent (Testimony of Ehrlich, Petitioner's Exhibit 1). In the spring of 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Burke, Sr. of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, met the Respondent who proposed to double the income that the Burkes were then receiving from interest on securities investments. This was to be done through the purchase of promissory notes secured by first mortgages on property located in Volusia County, ostensibly owned by LTP Properties, Inc., a land developer. Respondent showed them photographic slides of a club house at the development site and stated that there would be a golf course there and painted a bright picture of the receipt of 12 percent interest on the notes if the Burkes would liquidate the stocks that they owned and invest through him. He stated that the amounts that they would invest would represent only 40 per cent of the value of the real estate that secured their investment, and that it was a "sure thing.' Acting upon Respondent's advice, Mr. and Mrs. Burke cashed in some $180,000.00 in stocks and turned it over to the Respondent in June, 1974. In return, they received $180,000.00 in promissory notes in face amounts of $5,000.00 and$8,000.00 issued by LTP Properties, Inc. The promissory notes indicated on their face that the sale was approved by SEI, Inc., sales agent for LTP Properties, Inc., and they were signed by the president of SEI, Inc. The interest payments were to commence July 1st. Such payments were received during the months of July through December, 1974. In the fall of 1974, the Burkes invested another $100,000.00 with the Respondent for similar instruments, and again in January, 1975, they purchased another $20,000.00 in promissory notes and mortgages in face amounts of $5,000.00 each which also were issued by LTP Properties, Inc., but then owned by Respondent. At this time, the January 1st interest payment on the prior investments had not been made and, prior to making the final investment, the Burkes inquired of Respondent as to the reason for nonpayment of interest. He stated to them that LTP Properties was experiencing financial difficulties at the time but that it was endeavoring to get money from a bank overseas and from the Mellon Bank in Pennsylvania. No further interest payments have been made on any of the notes since December, 1974, and the Burkes discovered later that they did not, in fact, hold first mortgages on the real estate described in their mortgage deeds and consequently could not foreclose thereon (Testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Burke, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). Prior to advising investors to purchase notes of LTP Properties, Inc., Respondent made several trips to the site of the property, checked with the local bank of the developer, was shown a financial statement which indicated that the developer was solvent, and compared values with surrounding real estate developments. He told the Burkes that LTP was obtaining foreign financing based on information he had received from Mr. David Edstrom of SEI, Inc., who in turn had acquired the information from Mr. Frank Carcaise of LTP Properties, Inc. This statement was made to the Burkes sometime between February and June of 1975 according to the Respondent. As far as Respondent knew, LTP Properties, Inc., stopped making interest payments on their notes about February, 1975 (Deposition of Respondent).
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 The issue in Case No. 94-2065 is whether National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. violated certain disciplinary proceedings governing mortgage brokers and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The issue in Case No. 94-2066 is whether National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. is entitled to licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender.
Findings Of Fact As of September 3, 1992, the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Department), issued a mortgage lender's license to National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (NMB). At all material times, NMB acted as a mortgage broker, not a mortgage lender. NMB originated mortgaged loans, which were funded by third parties. NMB's principal place of business was in Pt. Charlotte. At all material times, Sheldon Voron was employed as the chief executive officer of NMB. Business was slow for NMB during the first few months after it acquired its mortgage lending license. NMB was operated by Mr. Voron, who supervised loan officers and the processing of loan applications, and Mark Asciutto, who handled bookkeeping, payroll, and the checking accounts, including the escrow account. Mr. Asciutto left the company in September 1993. By the end of 1992, the net worth of NMB was $89,115.23, according to an audited financial statement issued on February 12, 1993. The net worth deteriorated during 1993, dropping to $63,533 by December 31, 1993, according to an audited financial statement issued on March 7, 1994. At no time did NMB ever advise the Department that its net worth was below $250,000. In early 1993, business picked up from late 1992, and NMB hired a second loan processor. Refinancing activity in early 1993 required that NMB continually add new help. At this time, the approval of uncomplicated conventional loan applications took 30-45 days, and the operation ran smoothly. But business continued to increase. From March to June, NMB opened up offices in Naples and Sarasota. A branch in office in Englewood was opened and quickly closed due to its proximity to other offices. By April, the volume of business at NMB was increasing rapidly, aided in part by the addition of government loans. An average of 75 cases monthly during the first three months increased to 125 cases in April. Employing four to five loan processors, NMB continued to hire additional employees, but soon had problems finding qualified persons, as competition in the lending business was increasing due to considerable refinancing activity. Mr. Asciutto handled the escrow account during these busy months, until another employee assumed these duties in late July or August 1994. Mr. Asciutto routinely transferred money from the escrow account to the general operating account when Mr. Asciutto determined that NMB was entitled to retain the money, such as when customers had not been responsive to inquiries from NMB employees. The only such transfer for which a specific amount was identified at the hearing was $860, which was swept from escrow to general operations by check dated April 16, 1993. As is obvious from the trend in net worth, profitability did not increase in direct proportion to increases in business volume. In fact, total income increased from $82,716.01 in 1992 to $556,907 in 1993, but net income increased only from $30,714.88 to $43,528. NMB simply could not keep up with the business, as is evidenced by the experiences of its customers. In July 1993, William Zinser read an NMB advertisement in the newspaper offering an adjustable mortgage rate and a low fixed-rate mortgage. He called the number and set up an appointment to visit the office. He met with an employee of NMB, who discussed interest rates and closing fees. She assured Mr. Zinser that it would take only about 30 days to close the loan. Mr. Zinser submitted a loan application, and the employee said NMB would be back in touch with him. Mr. Zinser waited three or four weeks and heard nothing. He called and was told that there were no problems. On two or three occasions, an NMB employee requested from Mr. Zinser a profit and loss statement or a verification of his wife's income. However, NMB had the wife's income information since the start of the loan application process and twice had received the profit and loss statements. On January 4, 1994, Mr. Zinser applied for a loan with another lender. Shortly thereafter, an NMB employee called him and said that his loan was approved. When he said that he had gone elsewhere, she reminded him that he had obligated himself to pay a $1250 fee in connection with the loan. He refused to pay. On or about July 15, 1993, Janice Hamann first contacted NMB about refinancing her home. She applied for a mortgage, and an NMB employee asked for more information. She supplied it the following day, and the employee said everything was fine. The employee said that it would probably take 4-6 weeks to close. On August 13, 1993, Ms. Hamann called NMB to check on the status of the loan application. An NMB employee said that they would probably close when she returned from a week's vacation. On August 23, Ms. Hamann called and was told to provide some additional information on her payment history. She provided the requested information by September 20. For a second time, she had to provide verification of her husband's employment. On September 18, Ms. Hamann received notification from her homeowner's insurer that they had changed her insurance, evidently to show a new loss payee. No one from NMB had told her that the loan was ready to close. A couple of months later, surveyors showed up and surveyed the property that was to have been the subject of the loan and additional property. Ms. Hamann called NMB and informed them of the mistaken inclusion of additional property. On November 22, Ms. Hamann called NMB and said that she wanted her paperwork and was withdrawing her application. Ten days later, someone from NMB called her and said they were ready to close. Ms. Hamann restated her demand for her paperwork and refused to close. A few days later, she received a letter demanding $1500 in addition to the $300 that she had paid for the credit check, survey, and appraisal. She still receives bills from the surveyor. On September 9, 1993, Richard Chadbourne contacted NMB about refinancing a mortgage. At the first office visit, he completed an application and delivered a check to NMB in the amount of $300. An NMB employee said they would contact him for more information and said it would take 30-45 days to close his loan. At the first meeting, Mr. Chadbourne stated that he wanted the 3.259 percent variable rate mortgage with a six point cap, which NMB was offering. An NMB employee said that they could get him a 3.375 percent rate. On the one or two occasions that NMB contacted Mr. Chadbourne for more information, he provided it to them immediately. Repeated calls to NMB by Mr. Chadbourne or his agent were never returned. No one from NMB ever called Mr. Chadbourne to tell him whether his loan was approved or denied, and he never withdrew his application. On September 10, 1993, Katherine Healey and her husband visited the NMB office to apply for a refinancing loan. Responding to a newspaper advertisement for a 3.375 percent interest rate, the Healeys learned that they would have to pay $1250 in fees to obtain such a low rate. They agreed to pay the sum. They were asked only for salary information and certain documentation concerning their liabilities. An NMB employee said they could lock in the quoted rate when they returned from vacation in a couple of weeks. After returning from vacation, the Healeys called NMB repeatedly, but often could not find anyone to speak to or to return their calls. When they finally talked to someone about their loan, they were told they had to pay another $100 or $150 to lock in at 3.375 percent. They continued calling NMB without much success for two months after returning from vacation. They could not get a closing date, and nothing was happening. In response to their repeated requests to lock in an interest rate, they were told only that they could not lock in until two weeks before closing. By the end of November, the Healeys applied elsewhere for a refinancing loan. Shortly after the Healeys applied elsewhere for a loan, which closed about three weeks later, they received a call from an employee of NMB, who told them that they had a closing date. They said that they had decided to obtain a loan elsewhere. The employee demanded the $1250 fee, which the Healeys had not yet paid, and threatened to sue them if they did not pay. The Healeys refused to pay the fee and were able to use the appraisal, for which they had already paid, with their new application. However, they had to pay for a second credit report. In November 1993, Wendy Harrison contacted NMB for two mortgages--one on a home in Massachusetts and one on a home in Punta Gorda. She filed mortgage applications on or about December 15, 1993, but, by mutual agreement, she withdrew her application on the Florida home. Ms. Harrison subsequently left several telephone messages that were not returned. In January, she was assigned a new loan processor, who still did not return calls. Around this time, Ms. Harrison's husband received a notice from the mortgagee on the Florida property concerning a payoff amount. The Harrisons contacted NMB and told them that this was the wrong property. Mortgage rates began to increase in January. Ms. Harrison called repeatedly on the status of her mortgage refinancing from mid-January to mid- March. A new person assumed loan processing duties on her file. She called Ms. Harrison on or about March 9 and said that the credit report raised some problems. This was the first time either Mr. or Ms. Harrison had been told that there were problems with the credit report, which NMB had received in late December. Ms. Harrison mailed the requested explanatory documents on the following day. Two weeks later, after hearing nothing, Ms. Harrison called NMB and learned that the interest rate would be 8 percent annually, which was higher than the rate in effect when she initiated the loan approval process. The NMB employee explained that the higher rate was due to the fact that the Massachusetts property was a rental property, but NMB employees had known that from the start. However, the NMB employee assured Ms. Harrison that the file was complete and being forwarded to Miami for final approval. The following day, Ms. Harrison sent a certified letter withdrawing the application and asking for the appraisal and any other services for which she had already paid. NMB received the letter on March 26. On April 5, Ms. Harrison found in her mailbox an unstamped, uncancelled envelope that had evidently been hand- delivered by an NMB employee or agent. Inside was a rejection letter backdated to March 23, so as to look like the Harrison application had been rejected before it was withdrawn. Based on customer complaints, the Department financial examiner conducted an unannounced inspection of NMB from November 15-17, 1993. In addition to discovering a violation of the minimum net worth requirement imposed upon mortgage lenders, the examiner found several violations of requirements imposed upon mortgage brokers. At no time did NMB disclose in writing that it could not guarantee acceptance into a particular loan program and could not promise any specific loan conditions or terms. When taking applications, NMB failed to disclose the nature of the mortgage brokerage fee charged by NMB. The fee varied according to the terms of the loan, and NMB only disclosed a broad range of fees at the time of the application. NMB received monies from customers, but did not record check numbers for checks used to pay vendors on behalf of specific customers. NMB thereby failed to maintain an updated record of escrow account activity on an appropriate form. In fact, NMB had the Department-promulgated form, but, as discussed below, used it improperly to try to record mortgage brokerage transactions. NMB did not maintain supporting documentation for monies paid from its escrow account on behalf of customers. NMB often used courier prepayments to pay unrelated expenses. NMB did not record the dates and amounts paid out of escrow. NMB maintained a mortgage brokerage transaction journal, but it lacked the date the customer applied for the mortgage loan, the date of disposition of the application, the total amount of brokerage fees, and the name of the lender. NMB used the Department-promulgated form for escrow account activity and tried to adapt it for mortgage brokerage transactions, but failed to include the above-cited crucial items of information. Concerning NMB's application for a correspondent mortgage broker's license, there is evidence, in at least one case, of fraud or deceit. Ms. Harrison, who was very credible, described an act of fraud or dishonest dealing in the postdating and delivery of her rejection letter. The atmosphere of incompetence and neglect that prevailed at NMB might well have left a typed letter unmailed for days or even weeks. However, an employee or other agent committed a wilful act of deceit in driving the letter out to Ms. Harrison's home and leaving it in the mailbox, rather than simply dropping it in the mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order revoking the mortgage lender's license of National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. and denying its application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender. ENTERED on November 3, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on November 3, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Susan E. Steinberg Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa St., Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 Sheldon Voron 775 Tamiami Tr. Port Charlotte, FL 33953
