The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended for violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Irving Zimmerman holds Mortgage Brokerage Registration No. 90-3337. An Order of Emergency Suspension of License was issued by the Department of Banking and Finance dated March 24, 1975 and served on Respondent Irving Zimmerman by certified mail. Said Emergency Order is now in effect: Through his attorney, Milton R. Wasman, Respondent Zimmerman requested this formal administrative hearing. The attorney for Respondent, Mr. Milton R. Wasman, called the undersigned Hearing Officer on the day immediately preceding this hearing, that is June 23, 1975, requesting that the hearing be postponed because of a physical disability of said attorney. Said request was denied because of the late hour of request and because of grievous inconvenience to the parties and to the witnesses that had been subpoenaed. Said request was denied orally by telephone to Respondent's attorney whereupon said attorney requested that the transcript of the proceeding be made available. Said attorney was assured that he could view the transcript upon his request when it was available. Upon request of William Corbett, Counsel for the agency, authorization was given to take the deposition of witness Joseph M. Magill, a witness who could not attend the hearing. Said deposition is filed with this record. The attorney for Respondent Zimmerman, Mr. Wasman appeared in behalf of the Respondent at the taking of said deposition in Miami, Florida on July 18, 1975. The following instruments were made part of the record: Summons dated March 24, 1975; Order of Emergency Suspension of License filed March 24, 1975; Petition for Hearing filed by Respondent's attorney; Deposition of witness for the agency, Mr. Joseph M. Magill; Transcript of record of this hearing and also transcript of record at the taking of deposition. On or about July 10, 1974, Mr. Leonard G. Pardue issued a check in the amount of $7,500 payable to "State Farm Mortgage Co., escrow account" for the purpose of making a mortgage loan to Hans G. and Ann M. Widenhauser. Subsequently, after the Widenhausers decided not to make this loan, the Respondent contacted Mr. Pardue and attempted to negotiate a substitute loan to Alan and Marcia Hollet. After that loan did not close, Mr. Pardue, by his attorney, Mr. Roger G. Welcher, wrote several letters to Respondent which demanded a return of the $7,500 to his client. Mr. Pardue filed a civil suit against Respondent to recover said funds; however, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent has failed or refused to return the money. Mr. Bernard Supworth made a mortgage loan to Robert E. and Madeline Pope in June of 1972, through the Respondent as broker. The monthly payments were made to Respondent who in turn was supposed to remit the funds to Mr. Supworth. Subsequently, on or about January 25, 1974, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth that the mortgage was being paid off and Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction thereof to Respondent. Later, Mr. Supworth learned that the Pope mortgage had been paid off in July, 1973, and that a check had been issued by Dade Federal and Savings & Loan Association on July 9, 1973, payable to State Farm Mortgage in the amount of $3,544.98. Notwithstanding such payment in full on the Pope mortgage in July, 1973, Respondent continued to remit monthly payments on it to Mr. Supworth. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to receive any monthly payments after the mortgage had been satisfied and to date has not received all of his money on the Pope transaction. Respondent Zimmerman negotiated another mortgage loan to Mr. Supworth to James and Phyllis Lowe, as borrowers in the amount of $4,600 to be paid in the amount of $97.74 per month. These payments were to be paid by the Lowes to the Respondent, who was to remit said payment to Mr. Supworth. Thereafter, on or about November 21, 1973, Respondent advised Mr. Supworth, by memorandum, that this mortgage must be paid off. Thereupon, Mr. Supworth executed and delivered a Satisfaction of Mortgage to Respondent. He continued to receive monthly payments from Respondent on the Lowe mortgage up until January, 1975. Mr. Supworth later learned that the Lowe mortgage had been paid in full to Respondent in October, 1973. Mr. Supworth had not agreed to this transaction. On or about August 15, 1973, Mrs. Judith Valenza made a mortgage loan at the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Later Mrs. Valenza negotiated a mortgage loan through Respondent, as broker, to pay off the existing mortgage to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. Pursuant to that transaction, Mrs. Valenza closed said loan through Respondent, as broker. Thereafter, a check was issued on "Irving Zimmerman Trust Account" in the amount of $3,510.78, and payable to the Commercial Bank of Kendall. The check was returned because of "insufficient funds". As of the date of the hearing, the Commercial Bank of Kendall had not received payment of said check from Respondent. On or about January 28, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph M. Magill executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $3,500 in favor or Helen R. Stahl, as trustee, at the offices of Respondent. Respondent failed to account for or deliver money to the person entitled thereto, on demand failed to disburse funds in accordance with the agreement, and failed to keep funds in a trust account.
Findings Of Fact Respondents Phillip A. Banks (Banks) was at all times Material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0324865. Banks was the qualifying broker for Respondent, Abode Realty, Inc., which was at all tines material hereto registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0232550. On August 24, 1985, Respondents received in escrow $2,200 from Patricia Turner, as a deposit on her agreement to purchase a home located at 1300 Westview Drive, Miami, Florida. Pertinent to this case, the agreement was conditioned on Ms. Turner's ability to qualify for and obtain a first mortgage, insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the VA, in an amount not less than $40,837. Ms. Turner's application for the subject mortgage was duly submitted to American International Mortgage Company (American International). That application was, however, denied because the property did not appraise at the contract price. Following the denial of her application for mortgage financing on the first house, Ms. turner entered into an agreement through Respondents, dated November 20, 1985, to purchase another home located at 2501 Northwest 155 Terrace, Miami, Florida. At that time, Respondents returned to Ms. Turner the $2,200 deposit on the first contract, and she in turn deposited such sums with Respondents as a deposit on her agreement to purchase the second home. Pertinent to this case, the agreement was conditioned on Ms. Turner's ability to qualify for and obtain a first mortgage, insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the VA, in an amount not less than $39,867. The agreement further provided: When this contract is executed by the Purchaser and the Seller and the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of the Purchaser, Purchaser shall be liable to Broker for full amount of brokerage fee. The agreed brokerage fee was 7 percent of the purchase price, or $2,800. The second home was owned by Independent Properties, Inc., a corporation owned, at least in part, by Banks. This ownership interest was, however, fully disclosed to Ms. Turner at the time the agreement was executed. Ms. Turner's application for the mortgage on the second home, as with the first home, was processed by American International. While that loan was being processed, Ms. Turner contracted to purchase and purchased, unbeknown to Respondents or American International, a different home (the third home). When a American International discovered this fact, Ms. Turner's application was disapproved because she lacked sufficient resources to afford two homes and because she could not comply with the FHA regulation which required that the buyer reside in the home. But for Ms. Turner's purchase of the third home, she would have qualified for the mortgage contemplated by the second agreement. Ms. Turner entered into the agreement to purchase the third home on or about January 20, 1986, and her application for the mortgage on the second home was disapproved by American International on April 1, 1986. In the interim, on January 30, 1986, Ms. Turner secured a loan of $1,000 from Banks on the pretext that her uncle had been charged with a criminal offense and the monies were needed to secure his release. The proof established, however, that Ms. Turner had no intention of fulfilling her agreement to purchase the second home, and that the pretext she used to secure $1,000 from Banks was but a subterfuge to secure the return of some of her deposit. Ms. Turner made no demand for the return of any of her deposit monies. She did, however, file a civil action in January 1987 to recover such monies. That action was dismissed on motion of Respondents, but faced with the threat of continued litigation Respondents offered to settle with her for $1,100. Ms. Turner rejected Respondents' offer, and commenced a second civil action. That action resulted in the entry of a final judgment in her favor for $1,100 and costs. Respondents are ready, willing and able to satisfy such judgment, and have attempted to satisfy such judgment through Ms. Turner's counsel without success.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the a Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Legal Section 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian M. Berman, Esquire SMITH & BERMAN, P.A. 2310 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33020 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darlene F. Keller Acting Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
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).
The Issue The issue in (License) Case No. 92-2942: Whether or not the application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender filed by BOYER MORTGAGE CORPORATION should be granted or denied. The issues in (Disciplinary) Case No. 92-2943: Whether or not any disciplinary action should be taken against the individual mortgage broker's license held by FREDDIE Z. BOYER and BOYER MORTGAGE CORPORATION for violating various sections of Chapter 494 F.S. pertaining to mortgage brokers and correspondent mortgage lenders.
Findings Of Fact The time frame material to both cases is November 1991 through January 1992. At all times material, and currently, Freddie Z. Boyer was licensed with DBF as an individual mortgage broker, but he was and is not currently formally associated with any licensed mortgage brokerage business, mortgage lender, or correspondent mortgage lender. Mr. Boyer was formerly associated with First Coastal Mortgage Corporation, Inc. (First Coastal) as its principal and qualifying broker. The foregoing facts are found despite Mr. Boyer's testimony that he considered himself associated with First Coastal at all times material and considered himself still associated with First Coastal as of the date of formal hearing. In making the foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned has not relied on Mr. Hancock's and Ms. Poff's testimony to the effect that they "had been told" that First Coastal no longer exists or went out of business; this was unsubstantiated hearsay. Nonetheless, Mr. Boyer's testimony is clear that he, personally, ceased to function as an individual mortgage broker for First Coastal in October 1991, after an internal dispute with the two other owners of First Coastal who hold/held two-thirds of the stock of First Coastal. Mr. Boyer was/is a one-third stockholder of First Coastal. Mr. Boyer also testified that he had used his individual mortgage broker license to apply for First Coastal's corporate mortgage broker or mortgage lender license (it is not clear which) and that such a license had been issued to First Coastal upon his application and that thereafter that license was converted to the name and use of his two other partners because he had withdrawn as qualifying broker for First Coastal. He has left his individual mortgage broker's license on record with First Coastal but admittedly was not brokering loans through First Coastal at any time material to the instant cases. Mr. Boyer further testified that he incorporated and commenced business operations of Boyer Mortgage Corporation on October 17, 1991 to originate, sell, service, and transfer residential mortgages in Florida. All of the exhibits in evidence involving solicitation of mortgage loans name Boyer Mortgage Corporation, not First Coastal, as the mortgage lender or as the entity making inquiries and list Freddie Z. Boyer as the loan officer or broker. On December 27, 1991, DBF received an application from Boyer Mortgage Corporation for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender. The application disclosed that Mr. Boyer is the President-Secretary of Boyer Mortgage Corporation. At formal hearing, Mr. Boyer confirmed this to be true and that he also owns one-third of Boyer Mortgage Corporation. Question 7 on the application asks: Does the applicant have net worth of at least $25,000? (Documentation of net worth must be filed with this application. Audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles by an independent certified public accountant are required.) This question was answered in the affirmative. The application filed by Respondent Boyer on behalf of Boyer Mortgage Corporation was accompanied by an October 15, 1991 audit letter and financial statements to show that the corporation had the required $25,000 net worth. The October 15, 1991 audit letter which was submitted with the application contained the alleged signature of John M. Chancellor, Jr., Certified Public Accountant (CPA). The audit letter and financial statements were prepared on letterhead stationery purportedly that of Mr. Chancellor and predated incorporation of the corporate applicant, Boyer Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Chancellor testified by deposition that he did not conduct an audit of Boyer Mortgage Corporation and did not prepare the audit letter or financial statements which were submitted by Mr. Boyer and Boyer Mortgage Corporation with the corporation's correspondent mortgage lender application to DBF. There is no dispute on this issue. Mr. Boyer testified that he, personally, prepared the audit letter and financial statements and signed John M. Chancellor, Jr.'s name to the audit letter. He also admitted he never contacted Mr. Chancellor to receive permission to sign his name. Mr. Boyer is a licensed CPA in the State of Florida. Although Mr. Boyer claimed at hearing that he had a current CPA business relationship with Mr. Chancellor which would permit Mr. Boyer to sign his "partner's" name to audits, Mr. Chancellor denied that any business relationship or any partnership existed between them as of the date of the audit, the financial statements, or the application for licensure by Boyer Mortgage Corporation. Although Mr. Chancellor admitted he had formed some type of CPA firm with Mr. Boyer in Louisiana in 1974 or earlier, Mr. Chancellor also testified that he, personally, had ceased to be licensed as a CPA in Louisiana in 1989. Mr. Chancellor has never been licensed as a CPA in Florida. Upon the foregoing, it is found that Mr. Boyer's assertion that he believed he had the legal right to audit his own business (Boyer Mortgage Corporation) and to sign Mr. Chancellor's name to the audit and financial statements upon which Boyer Mortgage Corporation's application for Florida correspondent mortgage lender licensure was based is neither credible nor legally correct. The fact that Boyer and Chancellor apparently never actually ran any CPA business out of a common location and had only sporadically seen each other over the last several years renders incredible Mr. Boyer's protestations that he always had a legal right to sign a partner's name to anything. Assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Boyer did not have actual knowledge that Mr. Chancellor had ceased to be licensed as a CPA when he signed Mr. Chancellor's name to the audit and financial statements submitted with Boyer Mortgage Corporation's application for licensure, Mr. Boyer still was not excused at law or by the dictates of common business sense from making reasonable inquiry to determine that fact. When Mr. Chancellor ceased to be licensed as a CPA in 1989, that fact alone terminated any CPA association he had with Mr. Boyer as of that date, and it is not necessary for the undersigned to go further and unravel all the non-dispositive sub-issues raised herein concerning whether or not Mr. Boyer or another person forged Mr. Chancellor's signature on a 1974 partnership agreement for the CPA firm or whether or not Mr. Chancellor was bound by that agreement to give Mr. Boyer 30 days written notice of Mr. Chancellor's withdrawal from their Louisiana CPA firm. The fact that Mr. Boyer and Mr. Chancellor may have had some other business relationship or operated out of some other corporation or partnership in the past is immaterial. Their other active business relationship also ended many years prior to the time frame and events relevant to this proceeding and has nothing to do with it. Mr. Boyer's self-serving testimony that some CPA Board authorized him to sign Mr. Chancellor's name is mere hearsay upon which no finding of fact may be based. Signing someone else's name in order to lead the DBF licensing authority to believe that an "independent certified public accountant" had audited Boyer Mortgage Corporation's financial statements when, in fact, Mr. Boyer himself merely "rubber stamped" his own work is clearly misleading and constitutes a material misstatement in connection with the application. Despite Mr. Boyer's protestations that generally accepted principles of CPA practice (GAAP) permit such camouflaging of the truth, no persuasive evidence to that effect was presented at formal hearing to rebut the clearly misleading nature of the materials themselves. It is noted that the accuracy or falsity of the financial statements themselves was not proven at formal hearing, but the falsification of the licensure application by way of Mr. Boyer's deliberately misleading the licensing agency into believing independent CPA materials were being submitted when these materials were not independent at all has been clearly and convincingly proven. During the period of November 1991 through January 1992, Boyer Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Boyer solicited and accepted approximately thirty-four applications for mortgage loans without Boyer Mortgage Corporation being licensed as a mortgage brokerage business, a mortgage lender, or a correspondent mortgage lender, and without Mr. Boyer being associated with First Coastal or any other mortgage brokerage business. As previously noted, all applications in evidence show involvement of Boyer Mortgage Corporation; none show involvement of First Coastal. Also, Boyer Mortgage Corporation's application for correspondent mortgage lender was not even filed with DBF until December 27, 1991 (See, Findings of Fact 1-2 supra). It is further noted, however, that upon being warned by the Comptroller's Office that he could not do business, Mr. Boyer was cooperative and did not "close" thirty-three of these potential loans. One loan was closed for Marc and Janice Gillard in November 1991, and Boyer Mortgage Corporation received an origination fee and a portion of the discount points therefor. Despite the prior warning from the Comptroller's Office, Mr. Boyer authorized one of his Boyer Mortgage Corporation subordinates to close the Gillard loan through another lending institution because "Mr. Gillard was a friend" and Mr. Boyer "did not want them to lose their home." Boyer Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Boyer charged and received fees for credit reports and appraisals on two of the thirty-four loan applications. With regard to those fees, Mr. Boyer and his corporation were essentially only a conduit to appraisers and credit reporting services for small amounts of money. Perhaps $150, at most, was retained by Respondents. Although the evidence falls short of any fraud against any of the loan applicants during that three month period of time, Boyer Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Boyer were also providing good faith estimates to applicants, obtaining appraisals and credit reports, submitting invoices, requesting verification of deposits from banks, and requesting verification of employment on the mortgage loan applicants. As such, Boyer Mortgage Corporation was acting as a mortgage broker without a current active license and Mr. Boyer was acting as a mortgage broker without being associated with a mortgage brokerage business in contravention of statute. The evidence, however, does not establish that either Respondent acted as a correspondent mortgage lender.
Conclusions The burden of proof in a license application case is upon the applicant. See, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Herein, the parties adopted all of the evidence from DOAH Case No. 92-2943, the disciplinary case, and therefore all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law (except for the burden of proof) set out supra for DOAH Case No. 92-2943 are applicable to to DOAH Case No. 92-2942 as well. Boyer Mortgage Corporation's audit and financial statements were neither proven accurate nor inaccurate, so Boyer Mortgage Corporation cannot prevail in the license application case for that reason alone. Also, DBF has affirmatively proven that there was a material misstatement with regard to the independence of the CPA performing the audit and signing the financial statement and that these documents do not meet generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law constitute sufficient grounds for denying, in DOAH Case No. 92-2942, the application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender filed by Freddie Z. Boyer o/b/o Boyer Mortgage Corporation pursuant to Section 494.0072(1)(f) F.S. RECOMMENDATION IN CASE 92-2943 It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order: Finding Respondent Freddie Z. Boyer guilty of violating Sections 494.0033 and Section 494.0041(2)(p) and subject to discipline as provided in Section 494.0041(1) F.S. Finding Respondent Freddie Z. Boyer, guilty of violating Sections 494.0063, 494.0025(5), 494.0041(2)(c), (j) and (p) and 494.0072(2)(c), (j) and (p) F.S. and Rule 3D-40.250 F.A.C. and subject to discipline pursuant to Section 494.0041(1) and 494.0072(1) F.S. and revoking his individual mortgage broker's license; Finding the Respondent Boyer Mortgage Corporation, guilty of violating Section 494.0063, 494.0025(3) and (5), 494.0041(2) (k) and (p), 494.0072(2)(c) (j), and (p), and Rule 3D-40.250 F.A.C. and subject to discipline pursuant to Section 494.0041(1), 494.072(1) F.S. and ordering it to cease and desist all mortgage brokerage business. RECOMMENDATION IN CASE NO. 92-2942 It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order denying the application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender filed by Boyer Mortgage Corporation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NOS. 92-2942 and 92-2943 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) DBF's PFOF: 1-14 Accepted except to the degree they are unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative to the facts as found in the Recommended Order. The date in the PFOF has been corrected to correspond to the record. Boyer and Boyer Mortgage Corp.'s PFOF: Response to Post-hearing Order 1-2, 4-5 Accepted. 3, 6-7 Rejected as either not supported by the record or as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the Recommended Order. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as not supported by the record and/or legalarguement. Statement One This seems to be legal argument or conclusions of law and has been treated as such without rulings pursuant to Sections 120.59(2) F.S. Statement Two Rejected as statements of another state's law, materials not in evidence, and misstatements concerning the content of John M. Chancellor's deposition. Statement Three Rejected as legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Freddie Z. Boyer Boyer and Boyer Mortgage Corporation P. O. Box 5560 Destin, Florida 32540-5560 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Department, a state agency, initiated the underlying proceeding when the Cease and Desist Order was filed on February 20, 1990. Petitioner, CGFS, Inc., is a corporation which has its principal office in this state. At the time the action was initiated by the Department, the corporation had less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than $2 million dollars. Petitioner DeBellonia is the sole shareholder in the subchapter S corporation and does not have an independent claim for attorney's fees and cost. A Final Order dismissing the Cease and Desist Order was entered in favor of the Petitioners DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. on October 16, 1990. The time for seeking judicial review of that order has expired and the order has become final agency action as a matter of law. The underlying Cease and Desist Order directed to Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. was based upon a complaint made by Ms. Connie Jones, a client of CGFS, Inc. who dealt with Mr. DeBellonia. Ms. Jones, who contacted the Department, told representatives of the agency that Mr. DeBellonia, as president of CGFS, Inc., had agreed to arrange a mortgage loan on her behalf which was to be secured by real estate in Dade City, Florida. During the time period in which Ms. Jones had the business meeting with DeBellonia, neither Mr. DeBellonia nor CGFS, Inc. were licensed as a mortgage broker or a mortgage brokerage business. If the business transaction had occurred as originally represented by Ms. Jones, both Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. would have been in violation of the Mortgage Brokerage Act. Based upon the complaint initiated by Ms. Jones prior to the Department's filing of the Cease and Desist Order, the agency had reason to believe that Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. were violating or about to violate the law by acting as a mortgage broker and mortgage brokerage business without the proper licenses. Mr. DeBellonia and CGFS, Inc. were able to reveal during the formal hearing process that Ms. Jones' impressions of what occurred during her meeting with Respondent DeBellonia were faulty. It was necessary, however, for the Hearing Officer to resolve the question of what weight should be given to Ms. Jones' testimony and what credibility assessment should be made to resolve the disputed issues of material facts involved in the case. The Department disputes portions of the application for attorney's fees and costs relating to time spent with a private investigator and the review of a title search. Based upon the attorney's testimony at hearing in which he gave the reasons for the use of the investigator and the title search, the 1.33 hours spent by him on these matters during his preparation of the case was reasonable and necessary. As there is no other dispute as to the reasonableness of the hours spent by Mr. Mone in defending the Petitioners, it is determined that the 11.65 hours he spent in defending CGFS, Inc. as to the Cease and Desist Order should be included in his fee charges. Although the Hearing Officer specifically finds that $300.00 an hour is a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney of Mr. Mone's experience when the matter pursued is a civil action, this case is an administrative proceeding. Based upon the affidavit of Burton Wiand, whose law practice includes civil trial litigation as well as administrative law proceedings, $150.00 per hour is a reasonable fee within the Pinellas County and Hillsborough County area for services similar to those reasonably required from Mr. Mone in these proceedings. Great weight is given to Mr. Wiand's affidavit, and $150.00 per hour is a reasonable fee in this case.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Office is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokerage and mortgage lending and for licensing mortgage brokers. §§ 494.0011(1); 494.0033(2), Fla. Stat. License revocation and criminal prosecution The Office's predecessor, the Department of Banking and Finance ("Department"), issued a mortgage broker's license to Mrs. Comas in 1997. Mrs. Comas worked as a mortgage broker with Miami Mortgage Lenders until 1999, when she left her employment with that company after she was involved in what will be referred to as "the Sipple transaction." The Department initiated disciplinary action against Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license, and, because Mrs. Comas stipulated to the material facts of the Sipple transaction, an informal administrative hearing was held before a hearing officer appointed by the Department. The Department entered a final order revoking Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license on June 25, 2001, which was upheld on appear by the Third District Court of Appeal in Comas v. Department of Banking and Finance, 820 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The material facts of the Sipple transaction and the basis for the revocation of Mrs. Comas's mortgage broker's license were set out by the district court in Comas, which quoted the Final Order with approval, as follows: "Appellant's conduct in altering a customer check, depositing it in her personal account, and later writing a letter to the customer on company letterhead falsely stating that the funds were in the hands of the title company jeopardized not only the customer, but also her employer and the title company. This conduct violates the numerous statutory provisions referenced in the Final Order, casts considerable doubt on either Appellant's competence, integrity, or both, and clearly warrants license revocation." Criminal charges were filed against Mrs. Comas as a result of her actions in the Sipple transaction. The information filed against Mrs. Comas, and all counts thereof, was dismissed by order of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in April 2002. Denials of applications for licensure as a mortgage broker subsequent to revocation In October 2002, Mrs. Comas applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. The Office notified her that it intended to deny her application in a Notice of Denial dated March 17, 2003. Mrs. Comas requested an administrative hearing, and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 03-1738. A recommended order was entered on September 30, 2003, in which the administrative law judge found that Mrs. Comas failed to establish that she was rehabilitated and recommended that Mrs. Comas's application be denied. The Office entered a final order in which it adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order, and denied Mrs. Comas's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. Among the findings of fact made in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 and adopted in the Office's Final Order was a finding that Mrs. Comas had failed to make restitution to the owner of Miami Mortgage Lenders, who had paid Ms. Sipple the monies that Mrs. Comas had improperly deposited in her personal account. On March 10, 2006, Mrs. Comas again applied to the Office for licensure as a mortgage broker. In a Notice of Denial of Application dated November 9, 2006, the Office notified Mrs. Comas that it intended to deny her application. Mrs. Comas did not request an administrative hearing, and the Office entered a final order denying the application on December 18, 2006. The Office incorporated into the final order the factual bases set forth in the November 9, 2006, Notice of Denial of Application, which were virtually identical to the factual bases set forth in paragraphs a. through d. of the Notice of Denial at issue herein. RPM Lenders, Inc. and related companies In 1997, Mrs. Comas and her husband, Rolando Comas, founded RPM Lenders, Inc. ("RPM Lenders"). Mrs. Comas worked as a mortgage broker with RPM Lenders from the time she left her employment at Miami Mortgage Lenders in 1999 until her mortgage broker's license was revoked in 2001. Mrs. Comas continued working for RPM Lenders after her mortgage broker's license was revoked in 2001.2 RPM Lenders shared office space with RPM Systems, a computer company which set up computer networks and distributed computers, and it also shared office space with RPM Loans and Realty, which was created in 1999 or 2000 to handle real estate transactions. On or about December 29, 2003, Mr. Comas and Mrs. Comas, on behalf of RPM Lenders, signed a Stipulation and Consent that was incorporated into a final order entered by the Office on December 30, 2003. In the Stipulation and Consent, it was recited that Mrs. Comas was the sole owner and president of RPM Lenders until May 14, 2003. In paragraph 6.1.1 of the Stipulation and Consent, Mrs. Comas agreed that she would "not become a mortgage broker, principal broker, principal representative, owner, officer or director of R.P.M. Lenders, Inc." From 2004 through April 17, 2008, Mrs. Comas was the corporate secretary for RPM Lenders until it ceased business in 2007, when its name was changed to ROC Lenders, Inc. ROC Lenders, Inc., never did any business, but Mrs. Comas nonetheless continued to serve as that company's corporate secretary until her name was deleted as the corporate secretary pursuant to a filing with the Florida Secretary of State dated April 17, 2008.3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mrs. Comas managed RPM Lenders, RPM Loans and Realty, and RPM Systems. Her title with RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty was "Finance Manager," and her duties included the general daily management responsibilities of an office manager, such as ensuring that office equipment was repaired and maintained and ordering office supplies, as well as duties that included customer support, marketing and advertising, developing and implementing quality control procedures, preparing financial statements, handing accounts receivable and accounts payable, reconciling all bank accounts, reviewing all funded files, and attending all of the closings. Mrs. Comas was paid a management fee for her services as Financial Manager and Office Manager for RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty. In providing customer support for RPM Lenders and RPM Loans and Realty, Mrs. Comas responded to customer complaints on behalf of the brokers employed by those companies, reviewing files and attempting to resolve problems and disagreements between customers and brokers. RPM Loans and Realty was created in 1999 or 2000 "for realty purposes," and Mrs. Comas began working with RPM Loans and Realty as a real estate associate beginning in March 1999. Mrs. Comas continued to work with RPM Loans and Realty both as manager and as a real estate associate up to the time of the final hearing.4 Rehabilitation As part of her practice as a real estate associate, Mrs. Comas accepts deposits from buyers and transmits them to title companies.5 Mrs. Comas's license as a real estate associate was current at the time of the final hearing, and it has never been the subject of disciplinary action. In a letter dated November 12, 2008, to Sherry Sipple, the person whose check Ms. Comas altered and deposited in her personal bank account, Mrs. Comas denied having altered the check, stating that her name was placed on the check by someone else. Mrs. Comas did not mention in the letter her depositing Ms. Sipple's check in her personal bank account, and Mrs. Comas blamed Ms. Sipple and Ms. Sipple's brother for what she called a "misunderstanding," stating that, because Ms. Sipple and Ms. Sipple's brother went to the closing on the subject property without Mrs. Comas, she was unable to deliver to the title company the money Ms. Sipple had entrusted to her. Mrs. Comas apologized to Ms. Sipple "for what happened," but then asked that she give Mrs. Comas's attorney a "statement of acceptance of this BIG MISUNDERSTANDING."6 Mrs. Comas telephoned Mark Mazis, her employer at Miami Mortgage Company, and apologized to him for "what happened."7 Mrs. Comas acknowledged in her testimony at the final hearing that she did something wrong, although she insisted that she did not intend to steal Ms. Sipple's money by placing it in her personal bank account but intended only to expedite Ms. Sipple's closing. Since her license was revoked in 2001, Mrs. Comas has contributed to charities and attends church approximately twice a month. Summary The Sipple transaction The evidence presented by the Office in the form of the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in Comas v. Department of Banking and Finance establishes conclusively that, in 1999, Mrs. Comas committed fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, or incompetence in a mortgage financing transaction; that Mrs. Comas failed to deliver funds to her customer that Mrs. Comas was not entitled to retain; and that Mrs. Comas misappropriated the customer's check by depositing it in her personal account. Untruthful testimony in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 The evidence presented by the Office is not sufficient to support a finding of fact that Mrs. Comas gave untruthful testimony in a previous administrative proceeding. In the Notice of Denial dated August 6, 2008, the Office stated as one of the factual grounds for its denial of Mrs. Comas's application for a mortgage broker's license that Mrs. Comas had testified untruthfully at the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 03- 1738. This allegation was apparently based on several findings of fact in the Recommended Order which were referenced in the Office's Proposed Recommended Order in the instant case, as follows: At the July 23, 24[, 2003] formal hearing three issues were litigated — Mrs. Comas’s claims about the circumstances of the Sipple transaction, Mrs. Comas’s claim that she had paid restitution, and her claim that she had apologized to the victims, Sherry Sipple (now Sherry Mercugliano) and Marc Mazis. (Exhibit Q) On these three claims, Mrs. Comas’s testimony conflicted with that of the victims. (Id.) The Administratively [sic] Law Judge weighed the conflicting testimony and determined: 18. Through the time of the hearing, Comas falsely claimed the transaction failed because Sipple was dissatisfied with the interest rate Comas was able to obtain. This testimony is rejected in favor of Sipple's much more convincing explanation that she rejected the balloon payment Comas proposed, insisting upon the fixed rate which she had required from the beginning. * * * 20. For all of the trouble Comas caused Sipple and Mazis, she has never apologized to them. Although Comas testified to the contrary on that point, her self- serving testimony is not credible. * * * 22. Taking into account the entire record, and having had the opportunity to view the demeanor, credibility, ability to perceive facts, knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the events to which they testified, and motive to testify, of each of the witnesses in close and stressful quarters, the conclusion is inescapable that the victims' version of events is entirely consistent with the truth. To the extent that victims' recollections or characterizations of material events differ from those of Comas and her witnesses, the testimony of the victims is credited. (Emphasis added.) (Id.) Consequently, Petitioner made false claims and testified untruthfully at the July 23-24, 2003 formal hearing. The discussions in the quoted paragraphs are not findings of fact regarding the truth or falsity of Mrs. Comas's testimony. Rather, the Administrative Law Judge was assessing the quality and quantity of the evidence presented by the parties as a predicate to making findings of fact regarding the issue of whether Mrs. Comas had established rehabilitation. The Administrative Law Judge's assessment that Mrs. Comas's testimony was not as credible or as persuasive as the conflicting testimony of other witnesses was an assessment of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses made by the Administrative Law Judge in order to determine which conflicting testimony and evidence is the more persuasive. Although the Administrative Law Judge included in paragraph 18 of the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-1738 a statement that Mrs. Comas made a "false" claim in her testimony, it is clear from a reading of the entire paragraph that the Administrative Law Judge found Ms. Sipple's version of the events more credible. Indeed, an Administrative Law Judge would be acting improperly if he or she were to make a finding of fact that a party's or witness's testimony was untruthful or false because the truth or falsity of evidence is not at issue in an administrative proceeding. Such a finding would amount to a finding that the party or witness had committed perjury, which cannot be litigated in an administrative forum but is, rather, subject to criminal prosecution. See Ch. 837, Fla. Stat. The Office's denials of Mrs. Comas's applications for licensure subsequent to the revocation of her license The evidence presented by the Office establishes that it denied Mrs. Comas's applications for licensure as a mortgage broker in 2003 and 2006. The 2003 denial was based on a Final Order in which the Office, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03- 1738, found that Mrs. Comas had failed to establish that she had rehabilitated herself since the license revocation. The 2006 denial referenced, among other grounds, the denial of her application for licensure in 2003 for fraud and dishonest dealing. The Office's denials of Mrs. Comas's previous applications for licensure cannot, however, serve as an independent basis for denial of the application at issue herein. Were the previous denials sufficient of themselves to provide a basis for denying Mrs. Comas's future applications, the Office could perpetuate the denial of Ms. Comas's future applications indefinitely without regard to any efforts of Mrs. Comas to prove herself entitled to licensure. Mrs. Comas's service as an officer of RPM Lenders The evidence presented by the Office is sufficient to establish that Mrs. Comas violated a final order of the Office by serving as an officer of RPM Lenders and its successor company, ROC Lenders, Inc., subsequent to signing a stipulation in December 2003 averring that she would not serve as a corporate officer of RPM Lenders. Mrs. Comas's role in responding customer complaints about the service provided by mortgage broker employed by RPM Lenders does not, however, rise to the level of acting as an officer of the corporation.8 Rehabilitation The evidence presented by Mrs. Comas is not sufficient to establish that she has rehabilitated herself in the 10 years that have elapsed since the Sipple transaction. Although she attends church and contributes to charities, she presented no evidence of any other community service. The lack of any disciplinary action against her real estate associate's license since it was issued is a factor in Mrs. Comas's favor, but she failed to present any evidence regarding the number of real estate transactions she handles, and it was, therefore, not possible to assess the frequency with which she handled the funds of others in the context of real estate transactions. Other than her testimony about the November 2008 conversation with Mr. Mazis, Mrs. Comas presented no evidence with respect to her apology to him or to any acknowledgment she made to him that she had acted improperly in the Sipple transaction. Mrs. Comas's letter of apology to Ms. Sipple consisted primarily of her attempts to cast her actions in the Sipple transaction in a light favorable to herself, to excuse her actions as efforts to assist Ms. Sipple, and to blame others, including Ms. Sipple, for the incident. Although Mrs. Comas expresses remorse for what happened, she does not accept responsibility for her actions.
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 denying the application of Marta Comas for licensure as a mortgage broker pursuant to Section 494.0033(4), Florida Statutes, for the acts specified in Section 494.0041(2)(b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (p), (q), and (u)2., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2009.
The Issue In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Dave Taylor (“Taylor) alleges that various purported “statements” which he attributes to Respondent Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) constitute rules-by-definition that were not adopted under, and therefore violate, Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Department of Banking and Finance is the state agency charged with the administration of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, titled “Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending.” As such, it is responsible for regulating all persons, including mortgage brokers and lenders, licensed under that chapter. Taylor is licensed under Chapter 494 as a mortgage broker and as a “continuing education school.” His firm, Florida Compliance Specialists, Inc., provides consulting services to Chapter 494 licensees. The present dispute stems from amendments to Chapter 494 that the legislature enacted during the 2001 regular session. See Ch. 2001-228, Laws of Florida. These amendments were contained in a bill (CS/HB 455) approved by the governor on June 13, 2001, and became effective on October 1, 2001; they created a new position called “principal representative.” As defined by the legislature, the term “principal representative” means “an individual who operates the business operations of a licensee under part III.” Section 494.001(29), Florida Statutes (2001) (emphasis added).4 This statutory definition is amplified in a mandate that requires all licensees (and applicants) to designate a “principal representative who exercises control of the licensee’s business[.]” Sections 494.0061(8) and 494.0062(11), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added). Notably, the terms “operates” and “exercises control of” are not defined. As mentioned, the statute requires all licensees and applicants to designate a PR. Although PRs do not engage in a licensed occupation (i.e. there is no PR license), an individual appointed to the post of PR after October 1, 2001, must satisfy certain educational and testing requirements (the details of which are not important here), and the designating lender must submit documents showing that its PRD has complied with those requirements.5 After the governor signed CS/HB 455 into law but before the amended statutes took effect, the Department began making rules to implement the new provisions. Before long, proposed rules were published in the August 31, 2001, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. One provision of these proposed rules instructed that “[a]n individual can only be a principal representative for one [lender].” This “one lender to a PR” proposal did not implement an explicit statutory directive but arose from the Department’s then-prevailing interpretation of the statutory description of a PR as one who “operates” and “exercises control of” the lender’s business. Further illuminating the Department’s understanding of these terms were the Designation forms that it proposed to adopt, wherein the PRD was required to acknowledge that he or she would be “in full charge, control, and supervision of the [lender’s] business.” A person, the Department reasoned, could be “in full charge,” etc., of but one company at a time. In the course of rulemaking, however, the Department receded from its original interpretation. As a result, revised proposed rules——from which the bright line, “one lender to a PR” directive had been deleted——were published in the October 5, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly.6 An amended Designation, which unlike earlier versions lacked language requiring a PRD to confirm (with his or her signature) having “full charge, control, and supervision” of the applicant’s or licensee’s business, was proposed as well.7 By the end of January 2002, the Department’s proposed rules relating to PRs had been adopted and, at the time of this Final Order, were among the agency’s duly promulgated, existing rules. See Rule 3D-40.242, Florida Administrative Code. Although the Department does not presently have a bright line rule or policy that flatly forbids an individual from serving simultaneously as PR to more than one licensee, the Department continues to be skeptical that a dual designee can effectively perform, for more than one lender at a time, the responsibilities that it believes inhere in the office of PR. Accordingly, whenever a lender or applicant nominates an XPR for PR, the Department without exception subjects that lender’s Designation to stricter scrutiny than would be given if its PRD were not an XPR. (Indeed, if the PRD is not an XPR, then the Department presumes that he or she will be able to carry out the duties of a PR and hence makes no inquiry as to how the PRD will function as PR.) The first outward manifestations of the Department’s internal decision to scrutinize any Designation in which an applicant’s PRD is an XPR emerged in late November 2001 after the agency had received four separate applications naming Taylor as PR.8 As the Department had discovered upon review of these four applications, Taylor was already serving as PR to an existing licensee. This situation had given rise to a dilemma for which the Department was not fully prepared, as evidenced by a November 26, 2001, e-mail message from an agency attorney to the responsible policy makers in which she (the attorney) had advised that: There are two pending applications in which there are no deficiencies and we need to decide how will [sic] we will proceed since we took out the language in the rule that specifically stated an individual could only be a PR for one company at a time. Let me know what times you would be available [for a meeting to decide what to do]. The Department quickly decided what to do. Between November 27 and November 29, 2001, the Department issued four nearly identical letters, one sent by certified mail to each applicant who had chosen Taylor as its PR, which provided, in pertinent part: We are in receipt of your company’s application to become licensed as a mortgage lender in the State of Florida. A review of the application materials indicates that [applicant’s name] has designated Dave Taylor at [address] as the company’s Principal Representative. [The next four paragraphs quote Sections 494.001(29); 494.0062(11); 494.0062(1)(f); and 494.0062(12), Florida Statutes, which pertain to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes, provide as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (c) A material misstatement of fact on an initial or renewal application.[9] Dave Taylor has already been designated as a principal representative for another licensed lender under part III of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Please advise in detail how Mr. Taylor will operate and exercise control over your business.[10] We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. On or about November 30, 2001, the Department created a new deficiency code, DF 416, the description of which is “principal representative is designated to more than one entity.” This is an active deficiency code and is used consistently as a “red flag” on all applications to which it applies. When an application is tagged with a DF 416, the applicant is sent a letter in the form of the letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. This letter will hereafter be referred to as the “DF 416 Inquiry Letter.”11 It is important to emphasize that all applicants whose PRD is an XPR are sent the DF 416 Inquiry Letter, without exception.12 It is undisputed that Taylor has met all of the educational and testing requirements necessary to serve as a PR, and that the Department has no objection, based on facts and circumstances unique to Taylor, to Taylor’s being a lender’s PR. (In fact, he is presently a PR to one lender,13 under a designation to which the Department, consistent with its policy and practice of making no inquiry concerning PRDs who are not XPRs, raised no objection.) The Department’s concern about Taylor’s having been designated a PR by more than one company is indistinguishable from the concern that it expresses regarding all dual designees. This is why, although the contents of the DF 416 Inquiry Letter were developed to resolve a problem that specifically involved Taylor and his clients, the Department decided (and was able) to implement its Taylor-made solution on a generally applicable basis by sending the DF 416 Inquiry Letter to all applicants whose PRD is a dual designee. Each of the four applicants that had designated Taylor as its PR declined the Department’s November 2001 invitation to submit detailed information regarding the manner in which Taylor would operate and control the licensed business. Each applicant chose, instead, to designate someone else as PR. Thus, whatever advantages or considerations Taylor expected to receive in exchange for serving as these lenders’ PR were lost; the Department’s letters (the letters that became the form for the DF 416 Inquiry Letter) were the proximate cause of that loss, in that but for the letters, the lenders would not summarily have severed their respective business relationships with Taylor. After deciding how to deal with applicants whose PRDs are XPRs, the Department turned its attention to the dual designees of existing licensees. This was, in a sense, a bigger problem because, in their respective Designations, more than 50 licensees had selected an individual for PR who was a dual designee. Beginning around December 12, 2001, the Department sent all these lenders a letter similar to the DF 416 Inquiry Letter. This letter stated: We are in receipt of the principal representative designation forms for the following companies: [lender’s names]. A review of the principal representative forms indicates that [PRD’s name and address] has been designated the Principal Representative for both companies. [The next two paragraphs quote statutory provisions pertaining to PRs.] Sections 494.0072(1) and (2)(p) state as follows: Whenever the department finds a person in violation of an act specified in subsection (2), it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties against that person: Revocation of a license or registration. Suspension of a license or registration, subject to reinstatement upon satisfying all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Placement of the licensee or applicant on probation for a period of time and subject to all reasonable conditions that the department specifies. Issuance of a reprimand. Imposition of a fine in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for each count or separate offense. Denial of a license or registration. Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (1) may be taken: (p) Failure to comply with, or violations of, any other provision of ss. 494.001-494.0077. Please advise in detail how you will operate and exercise control over both of the above- mentioned businesses. We request that your response be submitted to the Department within 14 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at [phone number]. This form letter will be referred to as the “Compliance Inquiry Letter.” The evidence is unequivocal that the Department has sent, and plans to send, the Compliance Inquiry Letter to all licensees whose Designation names a person determined to be a dual designee, without exception.14 Taylor’s Description of the Alleged Rules-by-Definition In his petition, as required by Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Taylor described the alleged rules-by- definition. Here, in his words, are the Department’s alleged statements: Only one person can realistically “operate the business operations” of a licensee and “exercise control over the licensee’s business.” Therefore, only one individual shall prima facie be designated as principal representative for only one mortgage lender. The above rule shall not apply, however, to mortgage lenders which the Department deems to be “grand-fathered” i.e., such companies who designated their principal representative on or prior to October 1, 2001, the effective date of the statutory amendments. In such instances, an individual will be permitted multiple designations without further departmental scrutiny or inquiry as to how that individual will “operate” or “exercise control over each business.”[Footnote omitted]. Except for “grand-fathered” companies, if an individual once designated principal representative by a mortgage lender is similarly designated principal representative by a separate mortgage lender, the Department based upon the agency statement recited in (a) above, will require the subsequent mortgage lender(s) (i.e., the lender(s) other than the one first designating that individual) to provide in writing a detailed explanation to the Department, subject to potential sanctions, describing how that individual will operate and exercise control over that second mortgage lender. The Department considers as a “licensing deficiency” any mortgage lender application or principal representative designation submitted to the Department where the individual designated as the mortgage lender’s principal representative has previously been and continues to be designated principal representative by another mortgage lender. The Department, based upon this “deficiency,” shall not deem the application(s) “complete” for purposes of section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Such application(s) shall be subjected to the licensing procedures set forth in paragraphs (e) and (f) hereafter. In conformity with the agency statement set forth in (a) above, the Department will not undertake an inquiry of the principal representative designation submitted by the mortgage lender who first designated the individual as its’ principal representative. The Department will require mortgage lenders to provide the information referred to in section c above, through the use of a form, [i.e., the form letters attached as EXHIBITS “14”, “15”, & “16”, to this Petition]. Further, this form created for the purpose of soliciting information [not specifically required by statute or an existing rule] will require mortgage lenders to provide a response, specifically subject to announced sanctions, of details not otherwise required under the applicable statutes or rules. The Department, though requiring mortgage lenders to comply with the agency statements through the threat of announced sanctions, shall not provide to mortgage lenders or their designated principal representatives any clarifying or defining circumstances or criteria the Department will deem as acceptable——contractual or otherwise——for a person to be designated as principal representative for more than one mortgage lender. Any responses provided by such mortgage lenders in response to the Department’s written form shall be submitted by the applicant “at their peril.” Ultimate Factual Determinations In his just-quoted statements “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e,” Taylor described, with reasonable particularity, the essence of policies that, in fact, fall within the statutory definition of the term “rule.” Statement “a” describes (albeit somewhat imprecisely) a Departmental mindset, the view that a person is likely to have difficulty simultaneously serving more than one master as a PR; the last sentence of statement “d” accurately describes the Department’s related policy of not inquiring as to how a PRD who is not a dual designee will operate and control the lender’s business (because the agency presumes that a person will probably have no difficulty serving as PR to one lender at a time). Taken together, these views, in fact, constitute the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes.15 Taylor’s statement “c” and the third sentence of “d” (all of which, of course, he attributes to the Department) correctly describe, for the most part,16 the Department’s policy of requiring additional information from all licensees and applicants whose Designations nominate an XPR for the position of PR. This policy is plainly driven by the Department’s interpretation of the PR statutes, and it leads, in turn, directly to statement “e.” Restated to conform to the evidence, statement “e” holds that the Department will send either the DF 416 Inquiry Letter or the Compliance Inquiry Letter, whichever is applicable, to any lender whose PRD is an XPR. It is the form letters——the DF 416 Inquiry Letter and the Compliance Inquiry Letter——that have emerged as the most visible, most readily identifiable unadopted rules of the Department, for they solicit information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. By the end of December 2001 at the latest, rulemaking was both feasible and practicable with regard to the above- described statements, but no effort was made to adopt them as rules. Thus, the Department failed timely to commence rulemaking with regard to these statements in accordance with Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.17
Conclusions For Petitioner: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Law Office of H. Richard Bisbee 124 Salem Court, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2810 For Respondent: Cynthia K. Maynard, Esquire James H. Harris, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Homesafe Mortgage Company (Homesafe), initially known as FMC Mortgage Company, a Florida corporation, was established on May 24, 1990, and has, since its inception, been owned by Orlando Monteagudo and his wife, Omaida. On September 16, 1990, Homesafe applied to respondent, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's application was approved, and its mortgage brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. A few days after Homesafe was licensed, the assets of another corporation wholly owned by Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, First Miami Investments Corporation (FMIC), discussed more fully infra, were transferred to it, and Homesafe assumed the mortgage business of FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle, and ceased doing business. On October 1, 1991, a new law, the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, became effective, which substantially changed the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and required businesses desirous of engaging in activities as mortgage lenders to be licensed as such. The Act also required such licensure for entities engaged in the business of servicing loans, if they proposed to service loans for more than four months, whereas previously no license was required for such activity. As a consequence of the amendments to chapter 494, Homesafe filed a timely application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, that section provided: (1)(a) Any person in good standing who holds an active registration pursuant to former s. 494.039 . . . or any person who acted solely as a mortgage servicer on September 30, 1991, is eligible to apply to the department for a mortgage lender's license and is eligible for licensure if the applicant: 1. For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, has engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both . . . . (Emphasis added) And, Section 494.001(17), Florida Statutes, defined a "person" to mean "an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other group, however organized." Also pertinent to an evaluation of Homesafe's application by the Department was Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, which provided: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as defined s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. By letter of April 13, 1992, the Department notified Homesafe of its intention to deny Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." The basis for the Department's denial was it conclusion that Homesafe had not "engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both" for "at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, as required by the "Saving Clause," and that the provisions of Rule 3D-40.202 were not applicable to Homesafe's circumstances, such that credit for FMIC's activities could be accorded Homesafe. Subsequently, the Department amended its notice of denial to include, as an additional basis for denial, its contention that Homesafe violated the provisions of Section 494.0072(2)(k), Florida Statutes, by acting as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license. Homesafe filed a timely request for formal hearing and disputed the bases upon which the Department proposed to deny its application. Homesafe's activities and those of its predecessor in interest, FMIC Orlando Monteagudo, the chief executive officer and co-owner of Homesafe, has personally held an active license as a mortgage broker since 1984, and has, through various entities, been active in the mortgage brokerage business since that date, without unfavorable incident. On July 20, 1989, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo became the sole owners of OJM Enterprises, Inc. (OJM), then known as The R & M Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, through a structured buy out from his former partners, with whom Monteagudo apparently felt strong dissatisfaction. OJM was the parent company of First Mortgage Corporation (FMMC) and First Miami Investment Corporation (FMIC), both Florida corporations. FMMC had been licensed as a mortgage brokerage business since at least March 14, 1986; however, neither OJM nor FMIC were ever so licensed. 2/ In September 1990, Monteagudo, out of a desire to further distance himself from his former associates, and on the advice of his accountant as to the best way to wrap up the affairs of OJM, FMMC and FMIC, contemplated the merger of OJM and FMMC into FMIC by September 30, 1990, and the transfer of their assets and mortgage brokerage business activities to Homesafe, which until that time had been largely inactive. In furtherance of such plan, Homesafe, as heretofore noted, on September 16, 1990, applied to the Department for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. In the interim, a merger agreement was executed on September 29, 1990, on behalf of FMMC, FMIC and The R & M Group, Inc., whereby the parties agreed to merge The R & M Group, Inc., and FMMC into FMIC. [Use of the name "The R & M Group, Inc.," OJM's former name, was a mistake and would lead to a delay in filing with the Secretary of State as discussed infra.] Under the agreement, which was to have been effective September 30, 1990, FMIC would be the surviving entity, and "all the estate, property, rights, privileges, powers, franchises, and interests of each of the . . . corporations" would be vested in FMIC as the surviving corporation, without further act or deed. Considering the restructuring that was occurring, the proof is persuasive that at least by October 1, 1990, and more probably at some unidentifiable date shortly prior thereto, Homesafe began to service mortgage loans on behalf of FMIC. Thereafter, by October 30, 1990, following approval of its application for a mortgage brokerage business license, Homesafe received the assets of FMIC and assumed the mortgage brokerage business that had previously been operated through the corporate group, now FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle and ceased doing business. Notwithstanding their efforts to effect a technical merger by September 30, 1990, the Secretary of State, by letter of January 4, 1991, rejected the merger agreement because The R & M Group, Inc., had changed its name on September 4, 1990, to OJM Enterprises, Inc. Accordingly, the parties were advised to correct their agreement to properly reflect the corporate parties if they desired the Secretary of State to accept such filing. Consequently, on January 14, 1991, the parties executed an amended merger agreement that properly reflected the corporate parties as FMMC, FMIC and OJM Enterprises, Inc. That agreement was duly filed with the Secretary of State on January 18, 1991, and FMIC became, technically, the surviving corporation that date. Under the terms of that agreement, as with the initial agreement, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, as the sole owners of OJM, became the sole owners of FMIC. The Department's Rule 3D-40.202 Pertinent to this case, Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, provides: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as deemed in s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. Here, the Department and Homesafe disagree as to the proper interpretation of the foregoing provision. The intent of the rule, according to the Department, was to permit those who were licensed as a mortgage brokerage business prior to the adoption of the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, but were not a corporate entity, to qualify under the "Saving Clause." Notably, under the amendments to chapter 494, only corporations are eligible for licensure as a mortgage lender. See Section 494.0061, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department interprets the rule to apply only when there has been an actual change in the form of the business entity, through incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, and does not consider the rule applicable where, as here, a mere transfer of assets occurred between corporations. Contrasted with the Department's interpretation, Homesafe contends that the provisions of the rule are broad enough to cover the situation where, as here, the mortgage brokerage business of one corporation is assumed by another corporation, as long as the ownership interests remain the same. Under such interpretation, Homesafe and FMIC, the surviving corporation, would be considered the same "person" for purposes of determining eligibility under the "Saving Clause," and Homesafe could be credited, if necessary, with the time periods FMIC or its merged parts operated as a mortgage brokerage business to satisfy the "12-month" standard of the "Saving Clause." While Homesafe's interpretation may be a permissible interpretation of Rule 3D-40.202, so is the Department's. Indeed, the Department's interpretation of the rule is consistent with the intent of the rule and the doctrine of noscitur a sociis often applied as an aid to statutory construction. Under such circumstances, and for the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, deference is accorded the agency's interpretation. Homesafe's activities subsequent to October 1, 1991 Pertinent to the Department's charge that Homesafe has acted as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license, the proof demonstrates that since October 1, 1991, Homesafe has made between 120-170 mortgage loans, sold those loans to investors, and thereafter serviced the majority of those loans. In response, Monteagudo retorts that Homesafe was entitled to licensure under the "Saving Clause," and that it was entitled to and needed to continue its business pending Department approval of its application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered approving Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 28th day of April 1993.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 20, 1995, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the stipulation of the parties, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. The Florida Real Estate Commission ("Commission") operates within the Department and is the entity directly responsible for licensing and disciplining those licensed under Chapter 475. Section 475.02, Florida Statutes. The Division of Real Estate operates within the Department and assists the Commission in carrying out its statutory duties. Section 475.021, Florida Statutes. Janice H. Little is, and was at all times material to this action, licensed as a real estate broker in Florida and was issued license number 0370239. The last license issued to Ms. Little was as a broker %Dennis & Little, Inc., t/a Kays Realty, 421 Southwest 31st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33312. On April 7, 1993, Ms. Little obtained an offer from Karlene Bascombe to purchase real property owned by Maxine Williams. Ms. Little was acting as the seller's co-broker in this transaction. Ms. Little provided Ms. Bascombe with the names of several mortgage companies. Ms. Bascombe decided to apply for financing to Vision Mortgage Corporation, one of the companies identified by Ms. Little, and she met with Henry Yee, the manager of Vision Mortgage Corporation, at Ms. Little's office. Ms. Little introduced Ms. Bascombe to Mr. Yee but did not participate in their meeting. As part of her loan application, Ms. Bascombe authorized Vision Mortgage Corporation to verify her past and present employment records, among other things. At some point during the time Ms. Bascombe's loan application was being processed, Ms. Little learned that Ms. Bascombe's income was not sufficient to warrant approval of the application. Ms. Little was aware that Ms. Bascombe was a bookkeeper and that she worked full time at Lerner's. After learning that Ms. Bascombe had insufficient income to secure financing for the purchase of Ms. Williams' property, Ms. Little approached Donaval Powell and asked if he would be interested in hiring a part-time bookkeeper. Mr. Powell owns Filament Electronics, a business that sells and repairs electronic equipment. The business is located in the same shopping center in which Ms. Little's office was located and in close proximity to her office. Filament Electronics has been in the same location since it opened in 1992. Ms. Little and Mr. Powell have known each other since shortly after he opened his business. Mr. Powell told Ms. Little he might want to hire a part-time bookkeeper, but Mr. Powell heard nothing further about this matter. He never met Ms. Bascombe, he did not hire her, and she was never employed by Filament Electronics.1 Blanca Tanadell, an employee of Vision Mortgage Corporation, prepared a Fannie Mae Request for Verification of Employment form for Ms. Bascombe. Ms. Tanadell filled out boxes one through eight of the form, and she identified Filament Electronics as the employer from whom verification of Karlene Bascombe's employment was sought. Ms. Tanadell sent the form to Ms. Little, even though the instructions included on the form direct the lender to send the form to the named employer. Ms. Little completed boxes nine through thirty of the employment verification form in which Filament Electronics was identified as Ms. Bascombe's employer. Ms. Little represented that Ms. Bascombe was employed there in January, 1991, and that her present position was as a bookkeeper. Ms. Little knew when she completed the form that Ms. Bascombe had not been employed by Filament Electronics prior to April 10, 1993, but she testified that she believed that Mr. Powell had hired Ms. Bascombe subsequent to that date. Ms. Little further represented that Ms. Bascombe's annual "current gross base pay" was $24,250.00 and that her gross earnings for 1992 were $24,250.00 and for 1991 were $23,500.00. At the time she completed the employment verification form, Ms. Little had no documentation to support the earnings she attributed to Ms. Bascombe.2 Finally, Ms. Little signed the name "Hyacinth Fuller" and identified her as "Supervisor."3 She then sent the completed employment verification form to Vision Mortgage Corporation. Ms Little did not ask Mr. Powell to complete the employment verification form, nor did she ask him whether he employed Ms. Bascombe and, if so, the amount of her earnings. Ms. Bascombe's loan application was approved, and she purchased the real property offered for sale by Maxine Williams. Ms. Little was paid a commission at closing in the amount of three percent of the sales price of the property. Ms. Bascombe subsequently defaulted on her loan, and it was in the course of the loan company's investigation of the default that Mr. Powell denied ever having employed Ms. Bascombe. Ms. Little is licensed in Florida as a mortgage broker, and, at one time, her license was with Vision Mortgage Corporation. She is familiar with the procedures for processing loan applications. The stipulation entered into by the parties and the evidence presented by the Department are sufficient to establish that Ms. Little is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in a transaction related to her business as a real estate broker. Ms. Little seeks to excuse her actions by claiming that she believed that Ms. Bascombe had been hired by Mr. Powell after April 10, 1993, and that she was provided with the earnings figures by Henry Yee, who was the manager of Vision Mortgage and whom she considered trustworthy. She also claims that Mr. Powell wants to harm her because she spurned his sexual advances and told his wife that he constantly bothered her. These contentions are, however, contrary to the more credible and persuasive proof and, even if true, do not alter the fact that Ms. Little acted with, at the very least, extreme reckless disregard for the truth.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order finding Janice H. Little guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and revoking her real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Florida corporation headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. William Kirschner is Petitioner's owner and chairman of the board. Stacey Interlandi is its President and principal broker. Petitioner is in the mortgage lending and brokerage business. All of the mortgage loans it makes are sold to investors. Petitioner held an active mortgage brokerage business registration (No. HB 592567137 00) issued pursuant to former Section 494.039, Florida Statutes, which was effective from September 1, 1990, until its expiration on August 31, 1992. 2/ It currently holds a mortgage brokerage business license (No. MBB 592567137 000) issued pursuant to Section 494.0031, Florida Statutes. The effective date of this license was September 1, 1992. The license expires on August 31, 1994. From October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, Petitioner acted as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans and/or a servicer of mortgage loans. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has made mortgage loans by advancing funds to mortgage loan applicants. With respect to each of these loans, however, the commitment to advance funds was made prior to October 1, 1991. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has sold or assigned mortgage loans to non-institutional investors, but for no monetary gain. Since October 1, 1991, Petitioner has serviced mortgage loans pursuant to agreements into which it entered prior to October 1, 1991. At no time has Petitioner been licensed as a mortgage lender pursuant to Chapter 494, Part III, Florida Statutes. On or about July 31, 1991, the Department sent the following written advisement concerning the revisions made by the 1991 Legislature to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to all registered mortgage brokerage businesses, including Petitioner: The 1991 Legislature revised Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1991. A copy of the new law is enclosed. Some of the changes which affect mortgage brokerage businesses are: A mortgage brokerage business may not make (fund) loans or service loans. Only mortgage lenders and correspondent mortgage lenders may make (fund) loans. Only mortgage lenders may service loans. A mortgage brokerage business may ONLY act as a mortgage broker. "Act as a mortgage broker" is defined as: "... for compensation or gain, or in the expectation of compensation or gain, either directly or indirectly, accepting or offering to accept an application for a mortgage loan, soliciting or offering to solicit a mortgage loan on behalf of a borrower, or negotiating or offering to negotiate the terms or conditions of a mortgage loan on behalf of a lender." There are no net worth requirements for mortgage brokerage businesses. A principal broker designation form must be completed and maintained in the principal place of business and a branch broker designation form must be completed and maintained at each branch. The required forms will be sent to your office prior to October 1, 1991. To act as a mortgage broker, a licensed individual must be an associate of a licensed brokerage business and is prohibited from being an associate of more than one mortgage brokerage business. "Associate" is defined as: ". . . a person employed by or acting as an independent contractor for a mortgage brokerage business . . ." Under the new law, no fee or notification to the Department is required when a mortgage broker becomes an associate of your business. However, the license of each mortgage broker must be prominently displayed in the business office where the associate acts as a mortgage broker. Note: The Department will discontinue processing change of status requests under the current law effective August 1, 1991. Mortgage brokerage businesses in good standing which hold an active registration are eligible to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause. The applicant must have: For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both; Documented a minimum net worth of $25,000 in audited financial statements; Applied for licensure pursuant to the saving clause before January 1, 1992 and paid an application fee of $100. Should you meet the above requirements and wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the saving clause or if you wish to apply for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to Section 494.0061, please contact the Department for the appropriate application. These applications will be available in early September 1991. THESE CHANGES ARE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1991. PLEASE REVIEW THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE LAW CAREFULLY FOR OTHER CHANGES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR MORTGAGE BROKERAGE BUSINESS. As promised, application forms for licensure as a mortgage lender were available the first week of September, 1991. Petitioner requested such an application form on September 18, 1991. The requested form was mailed to Petitioner the following day. On December 31, 1991, Petitioner submitted a completed application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "saving clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. The application was accompanied by an application fee of $100.00 and an audited financial statement reflecting that Petitioner had a net worth in excess of $25,000.00. At the time of the submission of its application, Petitioner had an unblemished disciplinary record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of November, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4313 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of facts proposed by the Department: 1-7. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. 8. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 9-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 13. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a statement of the law, albeit an accurate one, than a finding of fact. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 16. Rejected because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 17-21. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 22. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 24 6/-39. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer. 40. Rejected because, even if true, it would have no bearing on the outcome of the instant case.
