The Issue Whether Respondent's selection of Squire, Sanders and Dempsey, L.L.P., jointly with Hicks and Peisner, P.A., as one of four offerors to provide services as bond counsel is contrary to applicable law, is clearly erroneous, is arbitrary, is capricious, or is contrary to competition. Whether an offeror engaged in a prohibited business solicitation communication. Whether an offeror violated the anti-collusion certificate of the Request for Qualifications.
Findings Of Fact Part V of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, consisting of Sections 420.501 - 420.517, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Act (Act). FHFC, created by the provisions of Section 420.504, Florida Statutes, is a public corporation. Pursuant to Section 420.504(2), Florida Statutes, FHFC is an agency of the State of Florida for the purposes of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Mark Kaplan served as the Executive Director of FHFC. As provided by the Act, a Board of Directors governs FHFC. The Board consists of eight members appointed by the Governor from specifically designated industries and backgrounds plus the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, who is an ex-officio and voting member of the Board. Pursuant to Section 420.507, Florida Statutes, FHFC has all powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Act. FHFC has the authority to issue bonds and hire bond counsel. On February 2, 2001, FHFC issued the RFQ at issue in this proceeding. Through the RFQ, FHFC solicited competitive, sealed responses from qualified law firms to act as bond counsel on behalf of FHFC. The RFQ defined the term "offeror" to mean a law firm that submits a response to the RFQ or two or more law firms that submit a joint response to the RFQ. The RFQ defined the term "response" to mean a written submission by an offeror that responds to the RFQ. The RFQ required written responses to be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2001. By subparagraph B.3. of Section Three of the RFQ, FHFC reserved the right to obtain any information concerning any or all offerors from all sources. By subparagraph B.4. of Section Three of the RFQ, FHFC reserved the right to request an oral interview from any or all offerors. FHFC received ten responses to the RFQ, including a joint response from Petitioners, a response from Squire Sanders, and a joint response from AMCER and Hicks. Stephen J. Mitchell and David L. Lapides submitted the response on behalf of AMCER. Reginald Hicks submitted the Hicks response jointly with the AMCER response. The submission letter for AMCER, signed by Mr. Lapides, stated, in part, as follows: Stephen J. Mitchell and David L. Lapides, on behalf of [AMCER] are pleased to join with Reginald D. Hicks to respond to [FHFC's] request for proposals [sic] in its efforts to select a law firm to serve as its bond counsel in multi-family and single-family bond issuances. AMERC, which served as [FHFC's] bond counsel since 1996, may merge with another firm. The attorneys who have served [FHFC] intend to continue to practice together. We want to assure [FHFC] that, regardless of the name we may practice under, the individuals who have worked with [FHFC] look forward to continuing our relationship with you. The submission letter for Hicks, signed by Mr. Hicks, stated, in part, as follows: Reginald D. Hicks, on behalf of [Hicks] is pleased to join with Stephen J. Mitchell and David L. Lapides to respond to [FHFC's] request for proposals [sic] in its effort to select a law firm to serve as its bond counsel in multi-family and single-family bond issuances. The AMCER and Hicks response stated, in part, as follows: Stephen J. Mitchell, David L. Lapides, Michael J. Nolan, Joseph D. Edwards, Fred B. Karl and Hillary M. Black are continuing the municipal bond practice of [AMCER]. As of the date of the RFQ response, AMCER continues its legal existence as a Florida professional services corporation. It is anticipated that, if selected to continue as [FHFC's] bond counsel, the contract will be accepted in the name of a successor firm. As required by the RFQ, the response filed jointly on behalf of AMCER and Hicks described their municipal bond practice group, their tax group, and set forth the qualifications and experience of each member of the groups that would be providing services to FHFC. That response responded to all other items in the RFQ, including information as to minority involvement. The response filed by Squire Sanders responded to all items in the RFQ. The joint response filed by Petitioners responded to all items in the RFQ. The responses consisted of objective items that could be scored and other items that were for the Board's information.1 Each member of an evaluation committee separately evaluated each response. The objective items were scored and ranked competitively based on that scoring. The informational items were summarized. The ranking and the summary were provided to each member of the Board. The ranking of the objective items of the written responses was a preliminary step in the evaluation process. It was not intended to be a final ranking of the offerors. Pertinent to this proceeding, the joint response of AMCER and Hicks was ranked third, the joint response of Petitioners was ranked fourth, and the response of Squire Sanders was ranked fifth. FHFC invited all ten offerors to make an oral presentation to the Board at its meeting on April 6, 2001. The Board was scheduled to select bond counsel at that meeting immediately after the oral presentations. The preliminary agenda for the April 6, 2001, meeting reflected that each of the ten offerors would be making an oral presentation and set the order for those presentations. Approximately three days before the April 6, 2001, meeting, Stephen J. Mitchell informed Mr. Kaplan by telephone that he, Mr. Lapides, and several other lawyers who had been employed by AMCER were going to join Squire Sanders. Mr. Mitchell advised that Hicks was still a part of their team. Mr. Mitchell also told Mr. Kaplan that AMCER and Hicks and Squire Sanders would not be making separate presentations at the Board meeting scheduled for April 6, 2001. There was no evidence submitted that the telephone conversation between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Kaplan touched on the merits of any response. After this conversation, a revised agenda for the April 6, 2001, meeting was prepared reflecting that nine offerors would be making oral presentations, not ten. The following appeared on the amended agenda under Agenda Item IV of the section styled Oral Interviews (RFQ2001/01) for Bond Counsel: Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L. P. (formerly known as: Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A.) Each offeror was permitted to make a ten-minute oral presentation to the Board and to present the Board a single sheet handout. The handout presented on behalf of Squire Sanders contained the following: Annis Mitchell Group now a part of Squire, Sanders Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and Steve Mitchell are pleased to announce that the Annis Mitchell group (the "Steve Mitchell Lawyers") that has served the Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing") as its bond counsel for the past 5 years, has now become a part of Squire Sanders. The group joining us is headed by Steve Mitchell, Joe Edwards, and David Lapides. Enhancement of our Commitment to Florida Housing The combined group brings to Florida Housing greater depth and strengths. Squire Sanders is one of the largest and best known national public finance law firms. Out of our 700 lawyers worldwide, 60 of our lawyers practice exclusively in the public finance area, comprising one of the largest public finance practice groups in the United States. Our Firm's public finance tax partners are also recognized as one of the nation's finest tax groups. Strong Presence in Florida The Squire Sanders team has an incredibly strong Florida presence in the public finance marketplace. Squire Sanders has ranked as the number one bond counsel in Florida, on a cumulative basis over the last eight years. Nationwide, Squire Sanders has consistently ranked in the top 10 bond counsel law firms in the nation over the last 12 years. Our Florida offices are in Miami, Tampa and Jacksonville and include 7 lawyers who are exclusively engaged in the public finance practice. Reginald D. Hicks is part of our Team We are pleased that Reginald Hicks will be part of our Florida Housing team. Mr. Hicks has participated in over $500 million of tax exempt bond issuances and has served as co-bond counsel to Florida Housing. Strong Housing Experience Together with the Steve Mitchell lawyers, the Squire Sanders team has been involved in over 43 housing bond issues in Florida during the last five years alone, for numerous Florida housing finance authorities. Our Steve Mitchell Lawyers have served as Florida Housing's bond counsel on 31 bond issues totaling over $618 million. Nationwide, the combined team has been involved in more than 183 housing transactions as bond counsel, underwriters counsel, credit enhancer's counsel and in other roles over the past 5 years covering the broad spectrum of housing finance. Our Continued Commitment With your confidence, we would look forward to our continued service as bond counsel for the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which will now be greatly strengthened and enriched by the joinder of the Steve Mitchell Lawyers with Squire Sanders. Prior to the presentations, Mr. Kaplan stated the following to the Board (beginning at page 71, line 24 of Joint Exhibit 2): . . . Just by way of background, Mr. Chairman, this board authorized staff to issue an RFQ for potential bond counsel to serve the corporation. We received 10 responses to the RFQ. Those were scored by staff pursuant to the scoring matrix that was in the proposal. There was no committee meeting. Each staff member scored individually, those scores were aggregated and averaged, and preliminarily score reports were made. You have as Exhibit A (Joint Exhibit 7) to this information a detailed matrix that shows how that scoring played out. You have all 10 respondents [sic] and you have the narrative of every question that was scored, the number of potential maximum points, and the average points that each participant received, so you can see as a board where the distinctions arose between various respondents [sic]. Those scores are one factor to go into your evaluation in determining who you wish bond counsel contracts with. Also relevant are nonscored items from the application. You have Exhibit B (Joint Exhibit 8) that includes some of the nonscored items, such as, the amount of insurance each respondent has. You also have as part of that response to questions, "Have you ever been sued? Tell us about it." And Exhibit C (Joint Exhibit 9) is the nonscored portion of the fee proposals that each bond firm gave us. The RFP [sic] says that those proposals on fees will be used as a guideline in negotiating the ultimate fee contracts. And I believe that what it says is that from those selected we will then make a determination as to the fee that will be paid to all bond counsel. The fourth evaluation that should go into your evaluation is what's about to happen, which is the oral presentations by the bond counsel firms. All respondents were invited to make their presentations. There is one change to the printed agenda that is before you. We've broken them up, but [there is] one change, and you have information of that in front of you. We had several [sic] proposals from the Annis Mitchell firm, Reginald Hicks, and the Squire, Sanders and Demsey firm. The Annis Mitchell group of lawyers are now part of Squire, Sanders, and Demsey, so they will make a single presentation on the number four spot on your agenda. Each participant's [sic] been given 10 minutes to make their [sic] presentation. . . . Stephen Mitchell, Reginald Hicks, and Ken Meyers (a Squire Sanders partner), made the presentation under Agenda Item IV on behalf of Squire Sanders. That presentation represented that Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Lapides, Joe Edwards, and Fred Karl and others at the former AMCER firm had been approved for membership in the Squire Sanders firm. The presentation emphasized the combined strengths of the former AMCER lawyers with the resources of Squire Sanders. Following that presentation, Mr. Kaplan made the following statement to the Board (beginning at page 148, line 17 of Joint Exhibit 2): . . . Given the merger of the group that filed the Annis Mitchell application into the Squire Sanders firms, we are treating the two applications as having also been merged and become one application. Following the nine oral presentations Mr. Kaplan recommended to the Board that FHFC select four offerors to provide services as bond counsel on a rotating basis. In response to a request to do so, Mr. Kaplan recommended his top four offerors to serve as bond counsel. The four included Squire, Sanders, and Demsey, jointly with Hicks. Mr. Kaplan did not recommend Petitioners. The Board therafter adopted Mr. Kaplan's recommendations. There was no evidence that Squire Sanders, Hicks, or the former AMCER lawyers received any unfair competitive advantage by the FHFC's treating their responses as having been merged. Section Five of the RFQ contains an anti-collusion provision which requires an offeror to certify the following: The response is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any person or entity submitting a response for the same service - except for any such agreement with a person or entity with whom the Response is Jointly Filed or such Joint Filing is made clear on the face of the response - and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. There was insufficient evidence to establish that any party violated the foregoing anti-collusion provision. All offerors in this proceeding have the basic qualifications to perform the services required by FHFC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing this bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 19th day of July, 2001.
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.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is a state agency charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Financial Funding is a corporation. Eric Schwartz is the sole director, officer and shareholder of Financial Funding. Mr. Schwartz has been licensed by the Department as a mortgage broker continuously since 1983. Between 1983 and 1988 Mr. Schwartz acted as broker for a wholly-owned mortgage brokerage business. From 1988 until October 1, 1991, Mr. Schwartz was licensed as a self-employed mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz has also held a real estate broker's license since approximately 1978. Financial Funding was created by Mr. Schwartz in order to comply with newly enacted requirements of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Effective October 1, 1991, licensed mortgage brokers in Florida were required to be employed by a mortgage brokerage business. Mr. Schwartz was, therefore, required to create a business entity or work for someone else's mortgage brokerage business in order to continue as a mortgage broker. Financial Funding's Application. On or about December 12, 1991, Financial Funding filed an application with the Department for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). It was revealed in the Application that Mr. Schwartz was the President of Financial Funding. By letter dated April 24, 1992, the Department denied Financial Funding's Application. The Department denied the Application because of its conclusion that Mr. Schwartz, an officer of Financial Funding, had violated Chapter 494, Florida Statutes and had a disciplinary history. Financial Funding timely challenged the denial of its Application. The Eason Complaint. Between approximately 1984 and 1987, Mr. Schwartz was the sole owner and president of Paramount Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Paramount"). Mr. Schwartz was the principal mortgage broker for Paramount and utilized Paramount as the vehicle for his practice as a mortgage broker. On or about November 5, 1985, Agnes Eason filed a complaint against Mr. Schwartz and Paramount (hereinafter referred to as the "Eason Complaint"), in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, Florida. A Final Judgment was entered on the Eason Complaint on or about February 17, 1987. The court found that Mr. Schwartz had initiated contact with the Plaintiff, Agnes Eason. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had represented to Ms. Eason that the Small Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as the "SBA"), was about to foreclose a lien on her home. The court also found that "[t]he Small Business Administration, in fact, was not foreclosing on Plaintiff's property [and had no plans to institute foreclosure proceedings in the near future.]" The language in brackets was struck from the Final Judgment. Therefore, no determination was made as to whether foreclosure proceedings might have been instituted in the future. The striking of this language, however, does not prove that the SBA was considering possible foreclosure proceedings on Ms. Eason's property. Nor was Mr. Schwartz's testimony persuasive enough to reject the findings of the court on the Eason Complaint. The court concluded that Mr. Schwartz told Ms. Eason that "the only way to save her home from foreclosure" would be to execute notes and mortgages in favor of Paramount. Ms. Eason executed the suggested notes and mortgages and they were recorded. Although the notes and mortgages were executed on terms which Ms. Eason accepted, the court concluded that "no consideration" passed from Paramount to Ms. Eason for the notes or mortgages. The court also concluded that Ms. Eason executed the notes and mortgages because of the misrepresentation concerning the SBA by Mr. Schwartz. The court found that when Ms. Eason notified Mr. Schwartz that her payments on the note she had executed to Paramount were more than she could afford, the notes and mortgages were cancelled and a satisfaction was recorded. The court also found that after cancelling the notes and mortgages, Mr. Schwartz incorrectly told Ms. Eason that "the only way left to save her home from imminent foreclosure by the Small Business Administration" would be to execute a Warranty Deed conveying the fee simple interest in Ms. Eason's home to him. Mr. Schwartz also told Ms. Eason that, pursuant to a document titled a "Disclosure", he would grant Ms. Eason and her mother a life estate in the property. Mr. Schwartz was also to pay Ms. Eason $1,000.00 and to pay real estate taxes on the property pursuant to the Disclosure. Ms. Eason executed a Warranty Deed and the Disclosure on June 18, 1985. The Warranty Deed was recorded June 19, 1985. The Disclosure was recorded, but not until September 13, 1985. Although the transaction was explained by Mr. Schwartz to Ms. Eason and she accepted it, the court concluded that Mr. Schwartz's representation that foreclosure by the SBA was imminent was incorrect and that Mr. Schwartz failed to tender the sum of $1,000.00 agreed to in the Disclosure. Although Mr. Schwartz testified that he did attempt to tender the $1,000.00 (less $175.00 in recording fees), he did so after the Eason Complaint had been filed and it was rejected because of the litigation. Therefore, although the Disclosure agreement was executed June 18, 1985, Mr. Schwartz did not attempt to tender the $1,000.00 until some time after the Eason Complaint was filed on November 5, 1985. The court also found that Mr. Schwartz had not paid real estate taxes on the property as promised in the Disclosure. Mr. Schwartz explained, however, that the taxes had not been paid because the first real estate taxes due on the property had not become due until after the litigation had been instituted. The court concluded as a matter of law, among other things, the following: That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ, on behalf of Defendant PARAMOUNT FINANCE CORPORATION [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned notes and mortgages. That the Defendant, ERIC SCHWARTZ [fraudulently] misrepresented a material fact to the Plaintiff, AGNES EASON, for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to execute the aforementioned Warranty Deed and "Disclosure." That the Warranty Deed executed by Plaintiff in favor of Defendant was procured by Defendant SCHWARTZ through the exercise of coercion and duress upon Plaintiff. That no consideration passed from Defendant SCHWARTZ to Plaintiff for any of the instruments executed by Plaintiff. That the purported promises made by Defendant SCHWARTZ in the "Disclosure", to the effect that certain debts of the Plaintiff will be paid by SCHWARTZ "if necessary", are illusory promises and impose no obligation upon the Defendant SCHWARTZ. Such promises are therefore unenforceable and do not constitute consideration in support of the subject conveyance. The court ordered the promissory notes, Warranty Deed and the Disclosure cancelled and declared them null and void. The Department's Awareness of the Eason Complaint. There were employees of the Department that were aware of the Eason matter at the time that an administrative action against Mr. Schwartz, which is discussed, infra, was being investigated by the Department. Prior to the action of the Department in this case, the Department has not taken disciplinary action against Mr. Schwartz's individual mortgage broker license as the result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint. The weight of the evidence failed to prove why the Department did not take action against Mr. Schwartz as a result of the judgment on the Eason Complaint until this case arose. The evidence also failed to prove, however, that the Department ever represented to Mr. Schwartz that it would not take any action against his license as a result of the Eason matter. 1990 Administrative Action. At some point during 1987, Mr. Schwartz decided to begin business as a mortgage broker with Mr. Stephen Hertz. Mr. Schwartz intended to discontinue operating through Paramount. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Hertz intended to operate their business as Dollar Mortgage Company (hereinafter referred to as "Dollar"). In June of 1987 Mr. Schwartz prepared an application to register Dollar as the mortgage broker. Mr. Schwartz also prepared an endorsement transferring his individual license as principal mortgage broker to Dollar. These documents (hereinafter referred to as the "Dollar Applications"), were provided to Mr. Hertz to file with the Department. Mr. Schwartz, having been advised by Mr. Hertz that the Dollar Applications had been filed, believed that the Dollar Applications had been filed with the Department. Before being informed by the Department that the Dollar Applications had been approved or that his individual license had been renewed, Mr. Schwartz engaged in several mortgage brokerage transactions in the name of Dollar. Engaging in the transactions in the name of Dollar, therefore, constituted acting as a mortgage brokerage business without a license. At some point after the Dollar Applications were filed, Mr. Schwartz contacted Mr. Paul Richman of the Department's Miami office to determine what the status of the applications was. Mr. Schwartz was informed that the Department was in the process of changing the manner in which applications were processed and the process was causing a delay. Mr. Richman advised Mr. Schwartz to check with the Department's Tallahassee office in November, 1987, if the Department had not acted on the Dollar Applications by then. In November, 1987, Mr. Schwartz contacted the Department's Tallahassee office and was informed that the Dollar Applications had never been received. Mr. Schwartz submitted new applications at that time. As a result of the fact that Mr. Schwartz had transacted business before his license had been renewed and had acted in the name of Dollar before receiving approval of Dollar to transact such business, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint, Number 1154-F-5/88 (hereinafter referred to as the "Complaint"), against Mr. Schwartz. The Complaint was entered August 29, 1988. On or about January 23, 1990, the Department and Mr. Schwartz entered into a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Stipulation"), settling the Complaint. Mr. Schwartz admitted in the Stipulation to the following: 3. Eric S. Schwartz admits that he acted as a mortgage broker with an inactive license, and that Dollar acted as a mortgage brokerage business without a valid registration but denies intentional wrongdoing as more fully set forth in Mr. Schwartz's affidavit dated May 30, 1989 which is referenced as if fully set forth at length herein. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Mr. Schwartz was required to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00 for his violation of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. It was also agreed that the Dollar application would be withdrawn and it was. Mr. Schwartz's individual license was, however, renewed. The Stipulation also provided that the Department would make at least one examination of Mr. Schwartz's mortgage brokerage activities during each six month period during the next twenty-four months from the date of the Stipulation. Audits were in fact conducted by the Department. No further charges were brought against Mr. Schwartz as a result of these audits. Additionally, the following agreement was contained in the Stipulation: 13. The Department agrees that, upon execution of this Stipulation, payment of the administrative fine, payment of the restitution ordered, and faithful compliance hereafter by Eric S. Schwartz with all of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation, the Department will take no further action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and the rules of the Department as set forth in the Complaint. However, should the Department, in its exercise of its discretion, deem it necessary to take action against Eric S. Schwartz for violations of the Act and rules of Department occurring after the time period set forth in the Complaint, then, in that event, all such allegations and charges may be used against Eric S. Schwartz in any such subsequent proceeding, if relevant. Eric S. Schwartz understands that there is no order, administrative or judicial, sealing these proceedings in the event of a future administrative complaint regarding activities alleged to occur subsequent to the final date of the timeframe of the investigation of the affairs of Eric S. Schwartz' activities as set forth in the Complaint. See the second paragraph number "13" on page 4-5 of the Stipulation. In March of 1990, the Department entered a Consent Final Order incorporating the Stipulation. The Department has not brought any charges against Mr. Schwartz subsequent to the execution of the Stipulation. The Department has continued to renew Mr. Schwartz's mortgage broker's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order denying Financial Funding's application for licensure as a mortgage brokerage business. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Financial Funding's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 6 and 8. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5. Although the Department offered no such evidence, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that there is "no difference." Hereby accepted. See 8. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 10-11 and 28-29. Accepted in 30, 32-33 and 37. Accepted in 31 and 34. Whether Mr. Hertz advised Mr. Schwartz to start doing business in the name of Dollar is not relevant. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "had no reason to operate improperly." What Mr. Hertz noted in his letter of May 18, 1988 is hearsay. The evidence failed to prove when the documents "had been previously provided . . . ." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz "was not at fault." Hereby accepted. See 37 and 38. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Schwartz had "nothing to hide." The evidence also failed to prove that the Department's audits were "extremely thorough. What the Department did during their audits of Mr. Schwartz is based upon hearsay. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 39. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12 and 25. See also 17-19 and 21. The weight of the evidence failed to prove the second sentence. The fifth sentence through the end of this proposed paragraph is not relevant. The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Eason was "initially pleased." 20 See 14-15, 19, 21 and 22. 21 See 25-27. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department was aware of the Eason matter for "seven years." The weight of the evidence also failed to prove the third sentence.. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 12. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 13, 21 and 23 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 35. The Stipulation was executed in January, not December. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 37. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 40. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 3 and 7. Accepted in 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Highpoint Center, Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Ashley Peacock Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue The issue is whether respondent acted as a mortgage lender within the meaning of Section 494.001(3), Florida Statutes, and thus is subject to Division licensure requirements.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division), is a state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Florida Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Act which is codified in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Division regulates mortgage lenders and requires such persons or entities to secure a license. Respondent, White Pine Resouces, Inc. (WPR), is a Florida corporation formed in March 1986. Its sole shareholder is John R. Grass, a Pensacola attorney. Although the corporation was originally formed for a number of purposes, its primary activity is the real estate investment business. It holds no licenses issued by, or registrations with, the Division. WPR's current business address is 358-C West Nine Mile Road, Pensacola, Florida. WPR's principal source of money is Grass, or his professional association, who loan money to the corporation. In some cases, the money is used to acquire parcels of property for resale, make necessary repairs or improvements, and then provide owner financing to the buyer. In other cases, WPR loans money to persons needing to make improvements to their homes or rental property and takes back a second mortgage from the borrower. These types of transactions, which occurred during the years 1992-95, are found in documents offered in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1-5. Respondent has also stipulated that several other transactions of this nature occurred during that same period of time. In every case, WPR was investing its own money or that of its principal. In 1992, a Division examiner analyst noted the following listing in the Yellow Pages section of the Pensacola telephone directory under the heading of "Mortgages": White Pine Resources Having Trouble With Financing Residential & Land Fast Service on 1st Mortgages The advertisement also contained respondent's street address and telephone number. In the 1993-94 telephone directory, WPR carried the following advertisement under the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pine Resources Specialists! Bad Credit - We Can Help Vacant Land Loans In the 1995-96 telephone directory, WPR placed the following advertisement in the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pines Resources A Private Investor Not a Mortgage Broker Specialists! We Can Help Vacant Land Loans Although the Division first noted one of WPR's Yellow Page advertisements in 1992, for some reason it did not conduct a formal investigation of respondent's activities until February 28, 1994. On that day, an examiner analyst made an unannounced visit to respondent's office for the purpose of inspecting its records to determine if WPR was acting as a mortgage lender. However, WPR's principal, John R. Grass, was not in the office, and the analyst simply left his business card and a message for Grass to contact him. The next morning, Grass telephoned the analyst's supervisor and advised him that since WPR was merely a private investor, and not a mortgage lender, it was not subject to the Division's regulation, and hence it would not provide copies of its records. A subpoena duces tecum was then issued by the Division, records were produced pursuant to the subpoena, and this controversy ensued. The parties agree, however, that this action was not prompted by complaints from consumers or other persons having dealings with WPR. The record indicates that a mortgage lender differs from a private investor in several material respects. An important distinction is that a private investor uses its own funds rather than those of another party. Also, a private investor does not buy or sell paper, does not escrow taxes, does not split or broker commissions, and does not close its own loans. In all of these respects, WPR had the attributes of a private investor. When mortgage brokerage firms are involved in transactions with private investors, they must supply the private investor with certain documents that are not provided to an institutional investor. Among others, they include a disclosure agreement, receipt of recorded instruments, an appraisal or waiver of the same, and title insurance. In addition, Division rules require that a mortgage brokerage firm record its transactions with private investors in a log journal known as DBF-MB-888. The evidence shows that for transactions between WPR and at least two mortgage brokerage firms during the years in question, the two firms recorded those transactions on DBF-MB-888. They also provided WPR with documents typically given to private investors. The Division has adopted Rule 3D-40.290(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a person is deemed to be holding himself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business if he advertises in a manner "which would lead the reader to believe the person was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans." The rule has not been challenged and, for purposes of resolving this controversy, is presumed to be valid. In view of the representations that WPR provided "Fast Service on 1st Mortgages" and "Vacant Land Loans," it is fair to infer that the Yellow Page advertisements made by WPR would reasonably lead the reader to believe that WPR was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans. Therefore, by virtue of advertising in the Yellow Pages, WPR is deemed to be holding itself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business. During the years 1993-95, the Division routinely sent WPR questionnaires regarding various WPR transactions with licensed lenders. The transmittal letter accompanying the questionnaire noted that the Division was conducting "a routine examination" of the licensed lender (and not WPR), and WPR's comments would "be of material assistance to (the Division) in determining compliance with the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act." By way of an estoppel defense, WPR has essentially contended that the questionnaires constituted a representation by the Division that WPR was merely a private lender. It further contends that, to its detriment, it relied upon that representation. But there is nothing in the documents that states that the Division considered WPR to be a private lender. Nor is there any evidence that the Division made any other oral or written representations to WPR that it did not need to secure a license. Finally, assuming arguendo that such a representation occurred, there was no showing that WPR relied to its detriment on such an alleged "misstatement of fact." WPR also raises the defense of laches arguing that it was severely prejudiced by the Division's delay in prosecuting this action. Except for testimony that respondent was forced to secure the services of an attorney to defend against this action, and its principal was required to attend a hearing, there was no showing of prejudice on the part of WPR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order requiring respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the mortgage lending business without a license. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-0290 Petitioner: Because petitioner's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. Respondent: Because respondent's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry L. Hooper, III, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Clyde C. Caillouet, Jr., Esquire 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103 Pensacola, Florida 32503 John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire 358-C West Nine Mile Road Pensacola, Florida 32534-1818
Findings Of Fact FHFC administers the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (Bond Program) as set forth in Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and related administrative rules. Worthwhile timely filed an application in the 1999 Bond Program cycle which was assigned number 99-040 to finance a development called Heritage Apartments in Collier County, Florida. FHFC initially deemed said application to be incomplete for the reasons set forth in a letter dated February 4, 1999. Worthwhile timely filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging FHFC's determination that application number 99-040 was incomplete, which Petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and assigned Case No. 99-1518. Upon further review by FHFC and in consideration of the deposition testimony of FHFC representatives in this cause, the parties stipulate and agree that: Worthwhile's application number 99-040 was not incomplete as initially determined by FHFC; Worthwhile's application number 99-040 is complete and must now be further processed pursuant to appropriate rules and procedures; and If it qualifies after further processing, application number 99-040 is to be funded with the next uncommitted bond proceeds made available to FHFC for allocation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that FHFC enter a Final Order which finds and concludes that: Worthwhile's application number 99-040 was not incomplete as initially determined by FHFC; Worthwhile's application number 99-040 is complete and must now be further processed pursuant to appropriate rules and procedures; and If it qualifies after further processing, application number 99-040 is to be funded with the next uncommitted bond proceeds made available to FHFC for allocation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire Skelding, Labasky, Corry, Hauser, Jolly & Metz, P.A. 318 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David A. Barrett, Esquire Barrett & Pelham, P.A. Post Office Box 930 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0930 Brad Baker, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1329 Stephen M. Donelan, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1329 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in Case No. 94-2065 is whether National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. violated certain disciplinary proceedings governing mortgage brokers and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The issue in Case No. 94-2066 is whether National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. is entitled to licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender.
Findings Of Fact As of September 3, 1992, the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Department), issued a mortgage lender's license to National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (NMB). At all material times, NMB acted as a mortgage broker, not a mortgage lender. NMB originated mortgaged loans, which were funded by third parties. NMB's principal place of business was in Pt. Charlotte. At all material times, Sheldon Voron was employed as the chief executive officer of NMB. Business was slow for NMB during the first few months after it acquired its mortgage lending license. NMB was operated by Mr. Voron, who supervised loan officers and the processing of loan applications, and Mark Asciutto, who handled bookkeeping, payroll, and the checking accounts, including the escrow account. Mr. Asciutto left the company in September 1993. By the end of 1992, the net worth of NMB was $89,115.23, according to an audited financial statement issued on February 12, 1993. The net worth deteriorated during 1993, dropping to $63,533 by December 31, 1993, according to an audited financial statement issued on March 7, 1994. At no time did NMB ever advise the Department that its net worth was below $250,000. In early 1993, business picked up from late 1992, and NMB hired a second loan processor. Refinancing activity in early 1993 required that NMB continually add new help. At this time, the approval of uncomplicated conventional loan applications took 30-45 days, and the operation ran smoothly. But business continued to increase. From March to June, NMB opened up offices in Naples and Sarasota. A branch in office in Englewood was opened and quickly closed due to its proximity to other offices. By April, the volume of business at NMB was increasing rapidly, aided in part by the addition of government loans. An average of 75 cases monthly during the first three months increased to 125 cases in April. Employing four to five loan processors, NMB continued to hire additional employees, but soon had problems finding qualified persons, as competition in the lending business was increasing due to considerable refinancing activity. Mr. Asciutto handled the escrow account during these busy months, until another employee assumed these duties in late July or August 1994. Mr. Asciutto routinely transferred money from the escrow account to the general operating account when Mr. Asciutto determined that NMB was entitled to retain the money, such as when customers had not been responsive to inquiries from NMB employees. The only such transfer for which a specific amount was identified at the hearing was $860, which was swept from escrow to general operations by check dated April 16, 1993. As is obvious from the trend in net worth, profitability did not increase in direct proportion to increases in business volume. In fact, total income increased from $82,716.01 in 1992 to $556,907 in 1993, but net income increased only from $30,714.88 to $43,528. NMB simply could not keep up with the business, as is evidenced by the experiences of its customers. In July 1993, William Zinser read an NMB advertisement in the newspaper offering an adjustable mortgage rate and a low fixed-rate mortgage. He called the number and set up an appointment to visit the office. He met with an employee of NMB, who discussed interest rates and closing fees. She assured Mr. Zinser that it would take only about 30 days to close the loan. Mr. Zinser submitted a loan application, and the employee said NMB would be back in touch with him. Mr. Zinser waited three or four weeks and heard nothing. He called and was told that there were no problems. On two or three occasions, an NMB employee requested from Mr. Zinser a profit and loss statement or a verification of his wife's income. However, NMB had the wife's income information since the start of the loan application process and twice had received the profit and loss statements. On January 4, 1994, Mr. Zinser applied for a loan with another lender. Shortly thereafter, an NMB employee called him and said that his loan was approved. When he said that he had gone elsewhere, she reminded him that he had obligated himself to pay a $1250 fee in connection with the loan. He refused to pay. On or about July 15, 1993, Janice Hamann first contacted NMB about refinancing her home. She applied for a mortgage, and an NMB employee asked for more information. She supplied it the following day, and the employee said everything was fine. The employee said that it would probably take 4-6 weeks to close. On August 13, 1993, Ms. Hamann called NMB to check on the status of the loan application. An NMB employee said that they would probably close when she returned from a week's vacation. On August 23, Ms. Hamann called and was told to provide some additional information on her payment history. She provided the requested information by September 20. For a second time, she had to provide verification of her husband's employment. On September 18, Ms. Hamann received notification from her homeowner's insurer that they had changed her insurance, evidently to show a new loss payee. No one from NMB had told her that the loan was ready to close. A couple of months later, surveyors showed up and surveyed the property that was to have been the subject of the loan and additional property. Ms. Hamann called NMB and informed them of the mistaken inclusion of additional property. On November 22, Ms. Hamann called NMB and said that she wanted her paperwork and was withdrawing her application. Ten days later, someone from NMB called her and said they were ready to close. Ms. Hamann restated her demand for her paperwork and refused to close. A few days later, she received a letter demanding $1500 in addition to the $300 that she had paid for the credit check, survey, and appraisal. She still receives bills from the surveyor. On September 9, 1993, Richard Chadbourne contacted NMB about refinancing a mortgage. At the first office visit, he completed an application and delivered a check to NMB in the amount of $300. An NMB employee said they would contact him for more information and said it would take 30-45 days to close his loan. At the first meeting, Mr. Chadbourne stated that he wanted the 3.259 percent variable rate mortgage with a six point cap, which NMB was offering. An NMB employee said that they could get him a 3.375 percent rate. On the one or two occasions that NMB contacted Mr. Chadbourne for more information, he provided it to them immediately. Repeated calls to NMB by Mr. Chadbourne or his agent were never returned. No one from NMB ever called Mr. Chadbourne to tell him whether his loan was approved or denied, and he never withdrew his application. On September 10, 1993, Katherine Healey and her husband visited the NMB office to apply for a refinancing loan. Responding to a newspaper advertisement for a 3.375 percent interest rate, the Healeys learned that they would have to pay $1250 in fees to obtain such a low rate. They agreed to pay the sum. They were asked only for salary information and certain documentation concerning their liabilities. An NMB employee said they could lock in the quoted rate when they returned from vacation in a couple of weeks. After returning from vacation, the Healeys called NMB repeatedly, but often could not find anyone to speak to or to return their calls. When they finally talked to someone about their loan, they were told they had to pay another $100 or $150 to lock in at 3.375 percent. They continued calling NMB without much success for two months after returning from vacation. They could not get a closing date, and nothing was happening. In response to their repeated requests to lock in an interest rate, they were told only that they could not lock in until two weeks before closing. By the end of November, the Healeys applied elsewhere for a refinancing loan. Shortly after the Healeys applied elsewhere for a loan, which closed about three weeks later, they received a call from an employee of NMB, who told them that they had a closing date. They said that they had decided to obtain a loan elsewhere. The employee demanded the $1250 fee, which the Healeys had not yet paid, and threatened to sue them if they did not pay. The Healeys refused to pay the fee and were able to use the appraisal, for which they had already paid, with their new application. However, they had to pay for a second credit report. In November 1993, Wendy Harrison contacted NMB for two mortgages--one on a home in Massachusetts and one on a home in Punta Gorda. She filed mortgage applications on or about December 15, 1993, but, by mutual agreement, she withdrew her application on the Florida home. Ms. Harrison subsequently left several telephone messages that were not returned. In January, she was assigned a new loan processor, who still did not return calls. Around this time, Ms. Harrison's husband received a notice from the mortgagee on the Florida property concerning a payoff amount. The Harrisons contacted NMB and told them that this was the wrong property. Mortgage rates began to increase in January. Ms. Harrison called repeatedly on the status of her mortgage refinancing from mid-January to mid- March. A new person assumed loan processing duties on her file. She called Ms. Harrison on or about March 9 and said that the credit report raised some problems. This was the first time either Mr. or Ms. Harrison had been told that there were problems with the credit report, which NMB had received in late December. Ms. Harrison mailed the requested explanatory documents on the following day. Two weeks later, after hearing nothing, Ms. Harrison called NMB and learned that the interest rate would be 8 percent annually, which was higher than the rate in effect when she initiated the loan approval process. The NMB employee explained that the higher rate was due to the fact that the Massachusetts property was a rental property, but NMB employees had known that from the start. However, the NMB employee assured Ms. Harrison that the file was complete and being forwarded to Miami for final approval. The following day, Ms. Harrison sent a certified letter withdrawing the application and asking for the appraisal and any other services for which she had already paid. NMB received the letter on March 26. On April 5, Ms. Harrison found in her mailbox an unstamped, uncancelled envelope that had evidently been hand- delivered by an NMB employee or agent. Inside was a rejection letter backdated to March 23, so as to look like the Harrison application had been rejected before it was withdrawn. Based on customer complaints, the Department financial examiner conducted an unannounced inspection of NMB from November 15-17, 1993. In addition to discovering a violation of the minimum net worth requirement imposed upon mortgage lenders, the examiner found several violations of requirements imposed upon mortgage brokers. At no time did NMB disclose in writing that it could not guarantee acceptance into a particular loan program and could not promise any specific loan conditions or terms. When taking applications, NMB failed to disclose the nature of the mortgage brokerage fee charged by NMB. The fee varied according to the terms of the loan, and NMB only disclosed a broad range of fees at the time of the application. NMB received monies from customers, but did not record check numbers for checks used to pay vendors on behalf of specific customers. NMB thereby failed to maintain an updated record of escrow account activity on an appropriate form. In fact, NMB had the Department-promulgated form, but, as discussed below, used it improperly to try to record mortgage brokerage transactions. NMB did not maintain supporting documentation for monies paid from its escrow account on behalf of customers. NMB often used courier prepayments to pay unrelated expenses. NMB did not record the dates and amounts paid out of escrow. NMB maintained a mortgage brokerage transaction journal, but it lacked the date the customer applied for the mortgage loan, the date of disposition of the application, the total amount of brokerage fees, and the name of the lender. NMB used the Department-promulgated form for escrow account activity and tried to adapt it for mortgage brokerage transactions, but failed to include the above-cited crucial items of information. Concerning NMB's application for a correspondent mortgage broker's license, there is evidence, in at least one case, of fraud or deceit. Ms. Harrison, who was very credible, described an act of fraud or dishonest dealing in the postdating and delivery of her rejection letter. The atmosphere of incompetence and neglect that prevailed at NMB might well have left a typed letter unmailed for days or even weeks. However, an employee or other agent committed a wilful act of deceit in driving the letter out to Ms. Harrison's home and leaving it in the mailbox, rather than simply dropping it in the mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order revoking the mortgage lender's license of National Mortgage Bankers, Inc. and denying its application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender. ENTERED on November 3, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 3, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Susan E. Steinberg Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa St., Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 Sheldon Voron 775 Tamiami Tr. Port Charlotte, FL 33953
The Issue The issue in the proceeding was whether the Respondents violated various provisions of Florida Statutes regulating the real estate profession by failing to return a $2,000.00 deposit, failing to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of a deposit dispute, and failing to maintain the deposit in a trust account or other proper depository.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are facts stipulated by the parties in their Prehearing Stipulation filed on March 31, 1986 That Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged [w]ith the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereto. That Respondent C.P. O'Sullivan is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0144214 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was as a broker, % Preferred Properties of Lee County, Inc., 311 Homestead Road, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936. That Respondent, Preferred Properties of Lee County, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto, a corporation licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0169117 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued was at the business address of 311 Homestead Road, Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936. At all times alleged herein, Respondent C.P. O'Sullivan was licensed as a real estate broker and sole qualifying broker and officer of Respondent Preferred Properties of Lee County, Inc. That on or about September 25, 1984, the Respondents solicited and obtained a sales contract entered into by Claretha Pinkney, as purchaser, and Elsie Barning, as seller, of certain residential property. That in connection therewith, the Respondents received in trust from Claretha Pinkney, a $2,000.00 earnest money deposit. The contract was contingent upon Claretha Pinkney obtaining a new mortgage loan. Claretha Andrews Pinkney is a school teacher for the Lee County Board of Education. In July 1984, she moved to the Lee County area from Georgia where she had also been a school teacher. (T. 20, 35). She contacted Respondent, Preferred Properties about her desire to purchase a house and began working with Kay Alcantara, a sales associate with Preferred Properties. (T-21, 85). Ray Alcantara introduced Mrs. Pinkney to C. P. O'Sullivan, who did a pre-qualification in his office. That is, he determined, through a series of questions, what price range to look for. During the pre-qualification, Ms. Pinkney gave her profession and her income, said she was from Georgia and said she owned a house in Georgia, which she rented out. She also said she had minimal liabilities. (T-99-100, 107-108). A house was found at 13 Apache Street in Lehigh Acres, and on September 25, 1984, a contract to purchase the house for $39,900.00 was executed. Mrs. Pinkney made deposits of $500.00 and $1500.00 in accordance with the contract. The contract required that she " make immediate application for a mortgage loan, or loans at a local lending institution at the prevailing rate of interest, in the amount of $35,900.00." The remaining $2,000.00 was to be due at the time of closing. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2). Claretha Pinkney applied for mortgage financing, through Columbus Mortgage Company, a Ft. Lauderdale based mortgage broker. She has relatives on the east coast who in the past had dealt with that company. (T-24-25, Respondent's composite Exhibit 2) The company did not maintain an office in Ft. Myers, but conducted business there through advertising WATTS Telephone number. (Deposition of James Gordon, P. 16). A representative of the company came over for the closings which took place in the office of Tri-County Title Company in Lee County, but the level of business never warranted opening a branch office in Ft. Myers. (Deposition of James Gordon, pp. 15-16, 20). In early November, Nancy Leclair, an employee of Columbus Mortgage Company, told Mrs. Pinkney that the company could not go forward with her application until they had verification that she had funds to close on the sale. (T. 43- 44). Mrs. Pinkney planned on using money from the Retirement System of the Georgia Board of Education but the retirement check had been sent to her prior address and was routed back to the Board of Education before it finally reached her in Florida. (T-23, 27) Mrs. Pinkney asked to have the loan application stay open while she was trying to get the funds from the Georgia Retirement System (T-45). Mrs. Pinkney told Kay Alcantara about the problem with getting the loan approved and the lost retirement check (T-27). Kay Alcantara stayed in touch with both Nancy Leclair and Mrs. Pinkney regarding the status of the loan and the retirement check. (T-89). Before November 20, Mrs. Pinkney called Kay Alcantara to say that she received a letter from the Georgia School System that her money was forthcoming but that she was eligible to leave the money in the fund and later receive benefits. If she cashed the check, she would lose her benefits. (T-86-87). The funds from the retirement system amounted to approximately $13,000.00 (T-52, 53, Respondent's Exhibit 43). On November 19, 1984, at Kay Alcantara's Suggestion, Mrs. Pinkney met with Kay, Lynn Aspinwall (the office manager) and C. P. O'Sullivan in Mr. O'Sullivan's office. Mrs. Pinkney informed the realtors that she did not wish to go through with the deal, that she didn't want to lose her retirement benefits and did not want to take the money out of the Georgia Retirement System. Mr. O'Sullivan told her that if she didn't want the house she would lose the $2,000.00 deposit and she should think about it overnight. If she still felt the same way, she could come in the next day and sign a release of the deposit. (T-87, 104-105). On November 20, 1984, Mrs. Pinkney returned to the office and signed the agreement forfeiting her binder deposit of $2,000.00. (T-33, Petitioner's Exhibit #4). At no time prior to, or including that date, did she ask to have her deposit returned. (T-105). On the same date, November 20, 1984, Mrs. Pinkney sent a letter to Nancy Leclair at Columbus Mortgage Company enclosing a copy of another contract for sale for an entirely different property and a different realtor. (T-57, 58, Respondents' composite Exhibit #2). This contract is dated November 4, 1984, and is for a single family residence for a total sales price of $34,900.00. Mrs. Pinkney received her Georgia Retirement fund check and on December 3, 1984, deposited it in Sun Bank/Southwest. (Respondent's Exhibit #3). She later returned the money to the retirement fund and her admitted purpose in making the deposit was to show she had sufficient funds to close and to "fake out" the lender, while waiting for some other funds to materialize. (T-62, 65). Two statements of credit denial were eventually issued by Columbus Mortgage Company. The first, dated January 15, 1985, was clearly for the Apache Street property. The second, dated January 20, 1985, describes the transaction as "First Mortgage financing for a purchase of a home." (Respondent's composite Exhibit #2, Petitioner's Exhibit #3). Neither C. P. O'Sullivan nor Preferred Properties were informed by Columbus Mortgage Company that Mrs. Pinkney's loan was turned down. (T-107, 119). Considered as a whole, the evidence in this proceeding strongly supports the inference that Claretha Pinkney reneged on her contract to purchase the Apache Street property not because she was turned down for the loan, but because she found another house that she preferred. That is why she freely signed the release for the $2,000.00. Respondents didn't know this at the time that the release was discussed and prepared; however, they knew of a different, highly credible basis for Mrs. Pinkney's rejection of the property: to qualify for the loan she would have to use her retirement money; she didn't want to use the money and lose her benefits. This knowledge was sufficient for the Respondents' reasonable and justifiable belief that Mrs. Pinkney was not entitled to return of her deposit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May, 1986, in MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 James Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Simon M. Harrison, Esquire Perch ~ Harrison, P.A. 1820 Colonial Blvd., Ft. Myers, Florida 33907 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulationff 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to subsection 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact #l.b. Adopted in Finding of Fact #1.c. Adopted in Finding of Fact #l.d. Adopted in Finding of Fact #1.e. Adopted in Finding of Fact #l.f. Adopted in Finding of Fact #l.g. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The finding that the loan was applied for is, however, adopted in Finding of Fact #5. Adopted in Finding of Fact #11. Adopted in Findings of Fact #7 and 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary and, as to entitlement to the money, wholly unsupported by competent evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Rejected as unnecessary. ·2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact #1-12 except 2.m and 2.0 which are unsupported by the evidence. The record does not reveal when Mrs. Pinkney attempted to claim the $2,000.00; it does establish that she did not claim the $2,000.00 before or at the time she signed a release. Rejected as a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioners are entitled to recover against the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund and, if so, the priority of payment to be applied to their claim. A secondary issue is whether claimants who gave notice prior to Petitioners are entitled to payment or whether they have waived or abandoned their claims.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations filed by the parties and the documentary evidence, I make the following findings of fact: The Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (the "fund") was created in 1977 to provide recovery for any person who meets all of the conditions prescribed in Section 494.043, Florida Statutes. The Department is charged to disburse the fund according to Section 494.044, Florida Statutes. Section 494.043, Florida Statutes, (Supp.1986) provides: Any person who was a party to a mortgage financing transaction shall be eligible to seek recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund if: The person has recorded a final judgment issued by a Florida court of competent jurisdiction in any action wherein the cause of action was based on s. 494.042(2); The person has caused to be issued a writ of execution upon such judgment and the officer executing the same has made a return showing that no personal or real property of the judgment debtor liable to be levied upon in satisfaction of the judgment can be found or that the amount realized on the sale of the judgment debtor's property pursuant to such execution was insufficient to satisfy the judgment; The person has made all reasonable searches and inquiries to ascertain whether the judgment debtor possesses real or personal property of other assets subject to being sold or applied in satisfaction of the judgment, and by his search he has discovered no property or assets or he has discovered property and assets and has taken all necessary action and proceedings for the application thereof to the judgment, but the amount thereby realized was insufficient to satisfy the judgment; The person has applied any amounts recovered from the judgment debtor, or from any other source, to the damages awarded by the court. The person, at the time the action was instituted, gave notice and provided a copy of the complaint to the division by certified mail; however, the requirement of a timely giving of notice may be waived by the department upon a showing of good cause; and The act for which recovery is sought occurred on or after September 1, 1977. Recovery of the increased benefits allowable pursuant to the amendments to s. 494.044 which are effective October 1, 1985, shall be based on a cause of action which arose on or after that date. The requirements of paragraphs (1)(a),(b),(c),(d), and (e) are not applicable if the licensee or registrant upon which the claim is sought has filed for bankruptcy or has been adjudicated bankruptcy; however, in such event the claimant shall file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings and shall notify the department by certified mail of the claim by enclosing a copy of the proof of claim and all supporting documents. Pertinent to this case, Section 494.044, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1986) Provides: Any Person who meets all of the conditions Prescribed in s 494.043 may apply to the department for payment to be made to such person from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund in the amount equal to the unsatisfied portion of that person's judgment or judgments or $20,000, whichever is less, but only to the extent and amount reflected in the judgment as being actual or compensatory damages. As to claims against any one licensee or registrant, payments shall be made to all persons meeting the requirements of s. 494.043 upon the expiration of 2 years from the date the first complete and valid notice is received by the department. Persons who give notice after 2 years from the date the first complete and valid notice is received and who otherwise comply with the conditions precedent to recovery may recovery from any remaining portion of the $100,000 aggregate, in an amount equal to the unsatisfied portion of that person's judgment or $20,000, whichever is less, but only to the extent and amount reflected in the judgment as being actual or compensatory damages, with claims being paid in the order notice is received until the $100,000 aggregate has been fully disbursed. * * * (3) Payments for claims shall be limited in the aggregate to $100,000, regardless of the number of claimants involved, against any one mortgage broker or registrant. If the total claims exceed the aggregate limit of $100,000, the department shall prorate the payment based on the ratio that the person's claim bears to the total claims filed. The first notice received by the Department alleging a claim against Barry Koltun or Oakland Mortgage Company was filed on August 13, 1984. This notice was filed on behalf of John and Mary Ahern. The Department utilized this notice in computing the two-year period addressed in Section 494.044(1), Florida Statutes. For purposes of recovery from the fund, the individual mortgage broker (Koltun) and the company qualified by the broker (Oakland) are treated as one. Petitioners filed an initial notice of their claim against the fund on October 16, 1985. This claim was asserted against Oakland Mortgage Company, Barry Koltun and Robert Tamarro. On January 23, 1987, the Department issued a "Notice of Intent to Grant or Deny Payment from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund Re Oakland Mortgage Company." This notice outlined the status of some thirteen claims which had given notice of their civil actions against the licensee within the two year period. Two claimants, Kusich and Szafran, had provided all documentation required by Section 494.043, Florida Statutes; consequently, they were approved for payment. The Petitioner's claim was denied because they had allegedly failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes and had failed to do so prior to August 12, 1986 (the end of the two year period). The Petitioners timely filed a petition for formal Chapter 120 proceedings challenging the Department's denial of their claim for payment. Subsequent to January 23, 1987, Petitioners completed the conditions precedent for recovery and submitted all documentation required to satisfy the requirements of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes. On July 6, 1987, the Department received notice and a claim from the Intervenors. This claim satisfied the requirements of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes. Of the thirteen original claims filed, only two claimants (Kusich and Szafran) completed all conditions of Section 494.043, Florida Statutes, on or before August 12, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter a Final Order finding the claims of Rusich and Szafran eligible for payment, and that the claim of Petitioners be evaluated as part of the second class established in Section 494.044(1), Florida Statutes, DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Zeigler, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. Suite 1010, Monroe Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul C. Stadler, Jr., Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Division of Finance Suite 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Joseph Degance, Esquire 1995 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jack F. Weins, Esquire Boca Bank Building Suite 200 855 South Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Morey Udine, Esquire 3111 University Drive Suite 425 Coral Springs, Florida 32065-6930 Hon. Gerald Lewis Department of Banking and Finance Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact For the purposes of these proceedings, Jager Industries, Inc. and Castle Realty Ltd. are synonymous as Petitioner. Through name changes, Castle Realty Ltd. became Jager Industries, Inc. Under the provisions of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, the Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (Fund) which includes the duty to approve or deny applications for payment from the Fund, as set forth in Section 494.042, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, 1st Federated Realty Mortgage, Inc. (1st Federated) was licensed as a mortgage broker in this state pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license number HE 7896. On or about January 8, 1981, 1st Federated filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa, Division. Thereafter, on or about December 16, 1981, 1st Federated was dissolved. On January 29, 1985, the Department received a letter dated January 25, 1985, by regular mail, requesting payment from the Fund on behalf of Castle Realty Ltd. Attached to the letter was a final judgment entered on April 21, 1982, in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County against 1st Federated in the principal amount of $50,000 based upon a violation of Section 494.042(2)(d), Florida Statutes, a Writ of Execution returned unsatisfied and an Affidavit of Reasonable Search. Thereafter on May 17, 1987, the Department received by certified mail a copy of the Complaint filed against 1st Federated and supporting documents including a copy of the Master Loan Commitment, Affidavit and Acceptance of Service. Pursuant to the Master Loan Commitment, Castle Realty paid $50,000 to 1st Federated as a Master Commitment Fee in exchange for a promise by 1st Federated to fund up to $4,000,000 for individual condominium loans. The individual commitments and closing of loans were subject to the lender approving the borrower's credit; however, approvals could not be unreasonable withheld. Timely notice of the institution of the action by Petitioner against 1st Federated as required by s. 494.043(5), Florida Statutes (1985), was waived by Respondent. No evidence was submitted regarding the number of claims involving 1st Federated and the amount of those claims that have been paid by Respondent from the Fund. Accordingly, no recommendation is made regarding the amount of Petitioner's claim that may be paid from the Fund pursuant to the limitations contained in s. 494.044, Florida Statutes (1985). By Notice of Intent to Deny Payment from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund dated May 22, 1987, Respondent entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and denied Petitioner's claim. As grounds therefor, Respondent concluded that the 1985 and 1986 amendments to Chapter 494 were applicable in this case as those amendments were remedial or procedural in nature and should be given retrospective application. Thereafter, Petitioner requested formal proceedings by petition filed June 16, 1987, and this request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Comptroller's letter dated July 23, 1987.
The Issue Whether the application of the Respondent Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Melvin Haber applied for registration as a mortgage broker by filing an application for registration as a mortgage broker on December 20, 1976. On January 14, 1977, Petitioner issued to Respondent its Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for registration as a mortgage broker. The reasons for such denial were set forth in an accompanying document entitled "Administrative Charges and Complaint." Petitioner Division of Finance had determined that Respondent Melvin Haber did not meet the proper qualifications necessary to be licensed as a mortgage broker and that he had, through Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation, charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions provided by the Florida Statutes; and although he had stated otherwise on his application, Respondent in fact had been charged in a pending lawsuit with fraudulent and dishonest dealings; and had demonstrated a course of conduct which was negligent and or incompetent in the performance of acts for which he was required to hold a license. By letter dated January 19, 1977, to Mr. Joseph Ehrlich of the Comptroller's Office, Tallahassee, Florida, Petitioner received a request from the Respondent Melvin J. Haber in which he acknowledged receipt of his rejection for mortgage broker's license and stated, "I received notice today of my rejection for my mortgage broker's license. I would, therefore, withdraw my application and re- quest return of $75.00 as I will not answer the rejection as I can't afford an attorney at this time." A Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint was entered on February 11, 1977. The grounds are as follows: "1. The Department of Banking and Finance does not have jurisdiction over this Respondent. There is no jurisdiction in any administrative proceeding over this Respondent. There is no pending application for any mortgage broker's license by this Respondent. The application originally filed for the mortgage broker's license was withdrawn on January 19, 1977. A copy of the letter withdrawing application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proceedings are moot and would serve no useful purpose. Permitting this tribunal to proceed on a non-existent request for broker's license would deny to the Respondent due process of law, equal protection of the law, and his rights under the State and Federal Constitutions applicable thereto." On March 4, 1977, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from Eugene J. Cella, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller, State of Florida, requesting a hearing in this cause be set at the earliest practical date, and enclosed in the letter requesting a hearing was a copy of the Division of Finance's Administrative Complaint and a copy of the Respondent's Special Appearance to Dismiss the Complaint. A hearing was set for April 22, 1977, by notice of hearing dated March 30, 1977. A letter was sent by Irwin J. Block, Esquire, informing the attorney for the Petitioner that the Respondent "intends to permit the matter to proceed solely upon the written Special Appearance to Dismiss Complaint heretofore filed." Evidence was submitted to show that between May 29, 1973 and continuing through November 25, 1976, Guardian Mortgage and Investment Corporation and Melvin Haber as Secretary/Treasurer charged and received fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowed fees or commissions in violation of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's application for registration as a mortgage broker indicated that Petitioner was not named in a pending lawsuit that charged him with any fraudulent or dishonest dealings. However, on August 5, 1976, a suit was filed in Dade County, Florida, which charged the Petitioner and others with fraud in violation of the Florida Securities Law. The application was filed by Respondent, was processed by Petitioner and a Notice of Intent to Deny Respondent's Application for Registration was filed together with Administrative Charges and Complaint. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction upon request of a party for a hearing once an application has been received and the Division has investigated and fully considered the application and issued its Notice of Intent to Deny and filed a Complaint on the applicant. In this cause the question of whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of fees also must be resolved. An orderly procedure to finalize the resolution of the issues is desirable and necessary. The Proposed Order filed by the Petitioner has been examined and considered by the Hearing Officer in the preparation of this order.
Recommendation Deny the application of applicant Melvin Haber for a mortgage broker's license. Refund the Seventy-Five Dollar ($75.00) fee Respondent paid upon filing the application. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Gentry, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Legal Annex Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Irwin J. Block, Esquire Fine, Jacobson, Block, Goldberg & Semet, P.A. 2401 Douglas Road Miami, Florida 33145
