Recommendation Based on the foregoing Stipulated Facts, Supplemental Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a final order that the following disbursements from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund be made Payee on the claims against Polk Investments, Inc.: Amount Amendolaro $ 2,661,22 Victorias 10,000.00 Fournier, Janice 10,000.00 Wilson 1,334.71 Ledfords 6,573.09 Fournier, Robert 10,000.00 Murphy 4,715.49 Murphy as Trustee 4,715.49 Total $50,000.00 RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSON, 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 13th day of November, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul C. Stadler, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis P. Johnson, Esquire SHELNUT AND JOHNSON, P.A. Suite One Belvedere Professional Center 1525 South Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33806-2436 Cristy F. Harris, Esquire HARRIS, MIDYETTE & CLEMENTS, P.A. Post Office Box 2451 Lakeland, Florida 33806-2451 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles Stutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in April 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination? Whether Petitioner's responses to the mortgage brokers examination administered in May 1995 were properly graded and, if not, whether Petitioner passed the examination?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensure of mortgage brokers pursuant to Part II of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 494.0033(2)(b), Florida Statutes, individuals who apply for licensure as a mortgage broker are required to pass a licensure examination. To pass the examination, a candidate must receive a minimum score of 75. National Assessment Institute is the company employed by Respondent to administer the licensure examination. Petitioner applied for licensure as a mortgage broker. On April 25, 1995, Petitioner took the mortgage broker examination. Petitioner was advised that she had achieved a score of only 64. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the examination questions and her answers thereto, and she did so on May 12, 1995. She questioned her failure to receive credit for fourteen of her answers on that examination and provided written explanations why she believed her answers to those questions were correct. Petitioner's written challenges and explanations regarding her answers to those fourteen questions were reviewed by staff of National Assessment Institute. The individual who reviewed Petitioner's responses did not testify in this proceeding. This individual determined that Petitioner's answers to those fourteen questions were incorrect and that her explanations were without merit. Petitioner was advised that she was not entitled to additional credit for her answers on the April 1995 examination. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her April 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her responses to the challenged questions on the examination. Petitioner also sat for the licensure examination administered May 23, 1995. Petitioner received a score of 74 on this examination. On June 9, 1995, Petitioner reviewed the grading of answers to the May 1995 examination. Petitioner asserts that the reviewer gave her the wrong question book so that the answer key would make her answers appear incorrect. For her review on June 9, 1995, Petitioner was provided a correct copy of her examination book, a photo copy of her answer sheet, her original scratch paper, and two challenge sheets. The information provided Petitioner reflected the response to each question the Respondent considered to be the correct response. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner failed to present any evidence that her May 1995 examination was improperly graded or that she was otherwise entitled to additional credit for her response to any question on the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that the April or May examination was improperly administered. She likewise failed to establish that the opportunity to review the scoring of these two examinations was compromised by fraud or mistake. The Respondent has promulgated Rule 3D-40.031(2), Florida Administrative Code, which authorizes it to request additional information in conjunction with a licensure application, which information may include the applicant providing evidence of a passing score on the mortgage broker examination. That Rule requires that additional information requested must be received by the Respondent within 90 days. The Respondent requested that Petitioner provide evidence that she had received a passing score on the examination. Petitioner has been unable to provide that information.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's challenges to the scoring of the April and May 1995 licensure examinations be dismissed and, consequently, that Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5132 The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are rejected as they are not supported by the record. While Petitioner purports to explain her answers to certain questions on the April 1995 examination, this evidence was not presented at the formal hearing. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The fact that Petitioner challenged ten question as a result of her review on June 9, 1995, was not established. Since there was no dispute that the request for formal hearing was timely and this is a de novo proceeding, the proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 9,10, 11, 13, and 14 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 15 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Nasrin Y. Niknam 53 Castle Harbour Isle Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Deborah Guller, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 302 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc. and Dovard J. Evers, its President, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has charged and accepted fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions on the transactions set forth in the administrative complaint, Exhibit "A," in violation of Sec. 494.08(4), F.S., and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of 494.05(1)(g), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Evers & Associates, Inc. through the parson of Dovard J. Evers, its President, was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, during the time period contemplated by the administrative complaint. Subsequent to the time of receiving the mortgage brokers-license, Dovard J. Evers, on behalf of Evers & Associates, Inc., entered into an agreement with several other parties to sell notes secured by mortgages on real estate. One of the agreements was with David Edstrom, of a corporation known as S.E.T., Inc., Mr. Edstrom being the President of said corporation, and the location of that corporation being in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A similar agreement was held with one Gary George of the Mortgage Consultants, Inc., Ocala, Florida. The agreement with Gary George involved a sale of mortgages for the benefit of the mortgagor, Washington Development Corporation. The third such agreement was with Phil Swan of Southeast Florida Corporation. The written conditions of the S.E.T., Inc. arrangement with Mr. Evers can be found in Respondent's Exhibits No. 2 through No. 5. Essentially, the arrangement was to have Mr. Evers, through Evers & Associates, act as a salesman for the benefit of S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. Their agreement envisioned that Mr. Evers would be afforded a percentage discount varying from 14 percent to 16 percent of the amount of a mortgage loan which was a note secured by real estate. In actual , the contact was made between S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swam Mr. Evers for purposes of placing notes that were for sale. The apparatus worked by having Mr. Evers contact mortgagees/investors who made a check payable to Evers & Associates for the full amount of the mortgage loan, whose price had been quoted by the intermediary; S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan. This amount was held in escrow until such time as the note and mortgage which secured the note could be drawn. The executed note and mortgage went directly to the third party mortgagee/investor without ever having the name of Mr. Evers or Evers & Associates, Inc., affixed to such documents. After this note and mortgage had been executed in behalf of the third party investor, Mr. Evers deducted a fee in favor of Evers & Associates, Inc., according to the percentage agreement with S.E.T., Gary George and Phil Swan and sent the balance of the money to S.E.T., Inc.; Washington Development Corporation through the person of Gary George and to Phil Swan of the Southeast Florida Corporation. The arrangement with Washington Development Corporation changed at a later date because Gary George was no longer involved and payments subsequent to his involvement were sent directly to Washington Development Corporation. The facts show that in the transactions found in Petitioner's Exhibit "A," the complaint, charges were made in behalf of Evers & Associates in the person of Mr. Evers which exceed the statutory allowance for fees and commissions in the amount stated in the column entitled overcharges. These overcharges are according to the percentage agreement between Mr. Evers and S.E.I., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan, minus adjustments made in behalf of the third party investor/mortgagee, as indicated in the testimony. This finding of facts, excludes the mortgage by M. Berkell which was stipulated between the parties as not being a matter for further consideration in the hearing. There was no evidence offered of the charge, if any, between S.E.T., Inc., Gary George, and Phil Swan in their dealings with their developer/mortgagors. At present the Respondent, Evers & Associates, Inc., and Dovard J. Evers, its President, have failed to renew the license in the current license period and, as of the moment of the hearing, have expressed no further interest in such renewal.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of Evers & Associates, Inc., by Dovard J Evers, its President, be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred O. Drake, III, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl M. Barker, Esquire 218 East Forsythp Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent is indebted to Petitioner as alleged in the Complaint filed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Findings Of Fact Robert Sepos is the comptroller for Ben-Bud Growers, Inc. As such Mr. Sepos maintains the company records which document amounts owed to it by others. As to this case, Mr. Sepos presented the invoices and statements due and owing from the Respondent. Based upon the unpaid invoices, Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $10,471.80. Respondent acknowledged that the sum of $10,471.80 is owed to Petitioner but claimed that such amount was not for the purchase of agricultural products as contemplated by Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. According to Mr. Towell the bulk of the debt owed to Petitioner is for packaging and shipping fees for produce from growers represented by Fantastic Produce. Mr. Towell maintains that packing and shipping fees are not encompassed within Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Mr. Sepos could not verify what sum, if any, of the total amount claimed was for agricultural products (versus packing or shipping). Based upon the admissions made by Mr. Towell, Respondent owes the Petitioner for agricultural products the sum of $775.00 in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's claim in the amount of $775.00 and disallowing the remainder. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ben Litowich, President Ben-Bud Growers, Inc. 6261 West Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 George Towell, President George Towell Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Fantastic Produce Post Office Box 159 Belle Glade, Florida 33430 American Southern Insurance Company Legal Department 3715 Northside Parkway, 8th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30327
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 Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: For the period September 1, 1987 through August 31, 1988, Respondent was registered as the principal mortgage broker for the company AFM. Respondent's license number, HT 0010066, and street address, 3200 N. Military Trail, Suite 300, Boca Raton, Florida 33431, were included on the mortgage broker business registration renewal form executed and submitted by Respondent to the Department. AFM's mortgage brokerage registration number was HY0019932. Ronald Mims performed an examination of the AFM business records for a period which included September 1, 1987 through August 31, 1988. One of the loan transactions examined by Mr. Mims pertained to a borrower/applicant named Frazer. The records maintained by AFM related to this transaction contained a good faith estimate, dated April 15, 1988, that was prepared and executed by Darlene M. Mannarino, as the AFM office manager. The file did not contain a copy executed by the borrower. The good faith estimate described in paragraph 2 provided, in part: In compliance with Chapter 494 of Florida Statutes; Lender/Broker hereby acknowledges receipt of an application fee in the amount of $ 300.00 , and agrees that this will be applied towards the settlement charges. If an acceptable commitment is not obtained or loan closing does not occur for any reason, this deposit will not be refunded. A copy of a check in the amount of $300.00 payable to "American Funding1 from Frazer Distributors was included in the AFM-Frazer transaction file. Also included was a loan application executed by Respondent as the AFM interviewer. None of the documents contained in the Frazer file dIsclosed the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund (MBGF). Such documents did not disclose the escrow/trust agent if other the payee, American Funding. AFN did not have an escrow/trust account. The good faith estimate for the Frazer transaction provided for an estimated charge of $225.00 for an anticipated appraisal fee. Peter H. Sayles performed an appraisal for the Frazer transaction. The total amount billed to AFM by Sayles for he Frazer account was $350.00. Mr. Sayles was not paid for this work nor for an additional $100.00 due to him from AFM for a Roberts account. Mr. Sayles obtained a default judgment for these amounts in summary claims. Mr. Mims also obtained copies of records maintained by AFM related to a transaction for a borrower/applicant named Neger. A good faith estimate executed by the borrower on October 27, 1987, contained the same language as described in paragraph 3 above. The amount of the Neger deposit, however, was $250.00. The file did not contain a copy of the good faith estimate executed by AFM. The file held a copy of a check dated October 27, 1987, from Daniel Neger to "American Funding" in the amount of $250.00. The Neger loan application was signed by Darlene/Sherin Reynolds as the interviewer for AFM. The Neger documents maintained by AFM did not disclose the conditions or limits for recovery from the MBGF. Additionally, the documents did not disclose the escrow/trust agent for the transaction if other than the payee (American Funding). At the time of this transaction AFM did not maintain an escrow/trust account. At all times material to this case, Darlene Mannarino was not licensed by the Department. Except as noted above, Ms. Mannarino's duties and the type of payment she received for the work she rendered on behalf of AFM are not established by the record in this case. AFM did not maintain a mortgage journal in connection with the loan transactions it processed. Instead, AFM retained records in a card index file for loan applications. The records maintained in the card index file were incomplete and, consequently, inadequate to allow Mr. Mims to track the status and completion of loan transactions processed by AFM.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter a final order placing the Respondent licensee on probation for a period of two years. Further, it is recommended that the Department impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-0743 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. While the Department established that Sayles was not paid for appraisal services rendered, that does not imply nor establish that Respondent misused funds. Whether funds exist from which Sayles could be paid, is unknown. All that is known is that AFM, for whatever reason, did not pay Sayles. Paragraph 9 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as unsupported by the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 3 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelsohn Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Ill Georgia Avenue, Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Jerald A. Goldstein JERALD A GOLDSTEIN, P.A. 3200 North Military Trail Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Mr. William G. Reeves General Counsel The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondents, Samuel T. Henson and DuPont Funding Corporation, committed multiple acts in violation of applicable statutes and administrative rules and, if so, what, if any, penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the administrative agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.3 Respondent, DuPont Funding Corporation ("DuPont") is a Florida corporation engaged in the mortgage brokerage business at a single location at 7300 West Camino Real Drive, Boca Raton, Florida 33442. DuPont is registered with Petitioner under registration number HB 592710662. Respondent, Samuel T. Henson, ("Henson"), is the principal mortgage broker for DuPont. Henson is licensed by Petitioner as a mortgage broker pursuant to license number HA 247542864. As the mortgage broker for DuPont, Henson is responsible for his compliance with Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, as well as that of DuPont. Petitioner examined and investigated Respondents in response to five complaints received by Petitioner. The investigation involved events allegedly occurring between January 1, 1989 through August 31, 1990. Misuse And Misapplication Of Deposits The Smith Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $1,493.00 to Mr. J. W. Smith (the "Smith transaction"). Mr. Smith deposited $1,493.00 with Respondents to pay the costs of a mortgage applied for by the purchaser of commercial property owned by Mr. Smith. According to the terms of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application, the deposit was refundable if Respondents were unable to obtain financing for the proposed transaction. After Respondents were unable to obtain the financing applied for, they refused to refund Mr. Smith's deposit. Mr. Smith owned the Esmeralda Inn in Chimney Rock, North Carolina (the "Inn"). The Inn was listed for sale with Daniel Murr of First Commercial Brokers in Asheville, North Carolina, in the amount of $650,000.00. In October, 1989, Mr. Smith received a full price offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. and Mrs. William C. Robeck. Mr. and Mrs. Robeck were represented by a Mr. Castaldi as the their agent. The terms of the offer required Mr. and Mrs. Robeck to pay $25,000.00 and for Mr. Smith to carry a second mortgage in the amount of $185,000.00. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid in the form of a first mortgage in the amount of $440,000.00. Mr. Smith did not accept the offer of purchase from Mr. and Mrs. Robeck because he considered the amount of the cash invested by the purchasers to be insufficient. Sometime in December, 1989, Mr. Smith received a full price offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. Andrew Okpych. The terms of the offer required Mr. Okpych to pay $100,000.00 and for Mr. Smith to carry a second mortgage in the amount of $200,000.00. The Branch Bank and Trust Company in Asheville, North Carolina agreed to provide a first mortgage in the amount of $350,000.00. Mr. Smith wanted to minimize the amount of his second mortgage. He was advised by Mr. Daniel Murr that Respondents had represented to Mr. Murr that they could obtain a first mortgage for the purchase in the amount of $440,000.00 to finance the Smith-to-Okpych transaction. This financing proposal would reduce the second mortgage held by Mr. Smith to $110,000.00. Mr. Smith authorized Mr. Murr to contact Respondents. Henson contacted Mr. Smith by telephone to discuss the proposed financing in the amount of $440,000.00 on or about December 19, 1989. During that telephone conversation, Henson represented to Mr. Smith that Henson had located a lender which had already approved the needed $440,000.00 loan. Henson refused repeated requests by Mr. Smith to identity the lender. Henson insisted that Mr. Smith sign an agreement to pay the costs of the loan transaction and deposit $1,500.00 with Respondents before Henson would identify the lender which had pre-approved the loan in the amount of $440,000.00. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych signed a Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "agreement") with Respondents on January 5, 1990. Mr. Okpych signed the agreement as borrower and Mr. Smith signed as the person responsible for all expenses incurred in connection with the agreement. The agreement was signed by Henson on January 5, 1992, and sent by facsimile to Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych from the office of Mr. Smith's attorney. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych made several changes to the agreement and initialed the changes. One such change made the deposit from Mr. Smith a refundable deposit by deleting the prefix "non-" from the word "non-refundable" in the typed form of the agreement. Mr. Smith and Mr. Okpych sent the modified agreement to Henson by facsimile on the same day. Mr. Smith telephoned Henson on January 5, 1992, to advise Henson that the modified agreement had been sent by facsimile. Henson stated that he had received the agreement and stated that the modifications were acceptable. Henson directed Mr. Smith to wire transfer the $1,500.00 deposit. Mr. Smith wired $1,500.00, less the $7.00 charge for the wire transfer, on January 10, 1990. The wire transfer in the amount of $1,493.00 was sent to the account of Dupont Funding Corporation, account number 3601345943, NCNB, Deerfield Beach, Florida. Henson notified Mr. Smith by telephone on or about January 15, 1992, that he could not procure the needed financing. The reason given by Henson was that the lender did not want to make the loan because the property was located in North Carolina. Henson still refused to identify the lender to Mr. Smith, but suggested that the needed financing may be obtainable from "General Electric." See Exhibit 12 at 24. The next day, Henson telephoned Mr. Smith and stated that the loan was not available from any lender and that the deposit of $1,493.00 would be refunded to Mr. Smith later in the week. After repeated requests and written demands, Mr. Smith's deposit in the amount of $1,493.00 has not been refunded. The Robeck Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $2,500.00 to Mr. and Mrs. William C. Robeck (the "Robeck transaction"). Mr. and Mrs. Robeck deposited $2,500.00 with Respondents when the Robeck's applied for a mortgage in the amount of $440,000.00 on October 11, 1989, in their unsuccessful attempt to purchase the Inn from Mr. Smith. When Mr. Robeck questioned whether the deposit was refundable, Henson changed the typed form of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "loan application") by deleting the prefix "non-" in the typed word "non-refundable". The modified loan agreement was signed by the Robeck's and Henson. Respondents were unable to obtain financing for the proposed transaction. After the Robecks were unable to obtain financing, Respondents refused to refund the Robeck's deposit. Mr and Mrs. Robeck made an offer to purchase the Inn from Mr. Smith sometime in October, 1989. The offer was rejected, and the Robeck's asked Henson to refund their deposit sometime in January, 1990. Henson refused to refund the deposit and told Mr. Robeck to find another bed and breakfast inn. Mr. Robeck found another bed and breakfast inn for sale in Franklin, North Carolina. He offered to acquire the inn by lease-purchase. His offer was accepted, but Mr. Robeck later found approximately $1,000,000.00 in stolen property on the premises. The owner was arrested, and the lease-purchase transaction was not consummated. Mr. Robeck again requested the refund of his deposit, and Henson again refused the request. Mr. Robeck has never been refunded any portion of his deposit. The Shuster Transaction Respondents failed to refund a deposit in the amount of $2,500.00 to Mr. Sanford Shuster (the "Shuster transaction"). Mr. Shuster deposited $2,500.00 with Respondents when he applied for a mortgage in the amount of $3,500,000.00 on February 8, 1990, to finance the acquisition of an Assisted Care Living Facility ("ACLF"). Henson changed the typed form of the Mortgage Loan Agreement and Application (the "mortgage application") by deleting the prefix "non-" in the typed word "non-refundable". The modified mortgage application was signed by Mr. Shuster and Henson. Mr. Shuster was unable to obtain financing, and Respondents refused to refund Mr. Shuster's deposit. Mr. Shuster made repeated attempts to obtain his refundable deposit from Respondents including several telephone conversations with Henson and two written demands for payment on April 10, 1990, and on June 2, 1990. In every instance, Henson agreed to refund the deposit but never did so. Mr. Shuster and Henson entered into a compromise agreement on September 10, 1990. Pursuant to the terms of the compromise agreement, Henson agreed to pay Mr. Shuster $2,000.00 in full settlement of the $2,500.00 claim by Mr. Shuster. Henson paid none of the $2,000.00 required under the settlement agreement with Mr. Shuster. Mr. Shuster sued Henson in Palm Beach County Court and obtained a Final Judgment against Henson on January 31, 1992, in the amount of $2,058.75. On May 7, 1991, Henson paid Mr. Shuster $100.00 toward the amount due under the Final Judgment, but made no other payments. Mr. Shuster has never received the balance of the deposit owed to him and has a claim pending with the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. The Linker Transaction Respondents failed to refund deposits totaling $22,500.00 to Mr. Gerald Linker (the "Linker transaction"). Mr. Linker deposited $22,500.00 with Respondents when he applied for a mortgage in the amount of $1,250,000.00 in May, 1990, to finance the acquisition of an alcohol and drug abuse center (the "center"). Henson obtained a written loan commitment from Nationwide Funding, Inc. ("Nationwide"), on May 23, 1990. Neither Nationwide nor Respondents performed in accordance with the terms of the commitment. Mr. Linker never received his loan and never received his deposits. Mr. Linker's attorney made repeated attempts to have Mr. Linker's deposits refunded to him. Mr. Linker's attorney filed suit in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, and obtained separate judgments against Henson and Dupont in the respective amounts of $69,023.01 and $69,520.78. Respondents paid none of the $138,543.79 owed to Mr. Linker. Mr. Linker has a claim pending with the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. The Barth Transaction Respondents failed to return a refundable deposit in the amount of $10,000.00 to Mr. Andrew J. Barth (the "Barth transaction"). Mr. Barth deposited $10,000.00 with Respondents when he applied for financing in connection with the purchase of the Cardinal Retirement Village in Bradenton, Florida, on November 17, 1989. Mr. Barth was to assume an existing mortgage of approximately $9,800,000.00 in the transaction. Respondents agreed to arrange the assumption. The owners of the Cardinal Retirement Village refused to proceed and Respondents never refunded Mr. Barth's deposit. The agreement between Mr. Barth and Respondents provided in relevant part: The deposit will be refunded no later than thirty (30) days from this date if this real estate and mortgage transaction is not successfully completed and closed. Mr. Barth made repeated attempts to have his deposit refunded to him. In May, 1990, Mr. Barth's attorney negotiated a Pay Back Agreement with Respondents in which Respondents agreed to pay $1,500.00 a month to Mr. Barth to refund the deposit with interest. Respondents paid only $3,000.00 to Mr. Barth. Mr. Barth has never received the balance owed to him for his refundable deposit. Failure To Maintain Escrow Accounts Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account during 1988 and 1989 and failed to place deposits in escrow. Respondents failed to place deposits in escrow for the Smith, Robeck, Shuster, Linker, and Barth transactions. The accounts to which the monies were deposited by Respondents were not escrow accounts. Respondents failed to place deposits from numerous other transactions in escrow. Respondents failed to deposit in escrow the following amounts: an appraisal fee of $250.00 and a credit report fee of $150.00 collected from Mr. Eric Jason prior to closing a mortgage for $101,650.00 on November 30, 1989; an appraisal fee of $250.00 and a credit report fee of $50.00 collected from Francis J. and Barbara A. Lynch prior to closing a mortgage for $50,000.00 on February 5, 1990; a deposit of $2,000.00 in part payment of the brokerage fee collected from Mr. Nicholas A. Paleveda and Ms. Marjorie Ewing prior to closing a mortgage for $356,400.00 on April 20, 1990; a deposit of $350.00 collected from Mr. Richard L. Trombley prior to closing a mortgage for $40,000.00 on November 2, 1990; and a deposit of $350 collected from the Sun Bay Development Corporation prior to closing a mortgage for $292,500.00 on February 6, 1990. Excessive, Duplicate, And Undisclosed Charges Respondents imposed excessive, duplicate, or undisclosed charges in numerous mortgage transactions. The costs itemized and collected from borrowers in these transactions were not supported by actual expenditures. Respondents collected $625.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Ernest L. Sego for an appraisal that cost $250.00. Mr. and Mrs. Sego paid $325.00 for an appraisal report at the time they executed a Mortgage Brokerage Agreement on August 17, 1988, for a mortgage in the amount of $151,000.00. At the closing on April 7, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Sego were charged an additional $300.00. Respondents collected $50.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Sego for a credit report at the time the Mortgage Brokerage Agreement was executed. At the closing, Mr. and Mrs. Sego were charged an additional $45.00 for a credit report. Respondents underestimated the closing costs for: Mr. Jason in the amount of $590.00; The Lynch's in the amount of $492.50; and Mr. and Mrs. Sego in the amount of $1,140.00. Failure To Disclose Respondents failed to disclose costs incurred by numerous borrowers. Respondents failed to disclose changes in the cost of title insurance which occurred between the time the borrowers signed Good Faith Estimate forms and the time the mortgage transactions closed. The estimated cost for title insurance for the Lynch's was $460.00 while the actual cost was $637.50. The estimated cost of title insurance for Mr. and Mrs. Sego was $200.00 and the actual cost was $263.00. The Mortgage Brokerage Agreement/Good Faith Estimate was not signed by two borrowers in separate transactions. Neither Mr. and Mrs. Knowlton nor Mr. Trombley signed those documents. Respondents failed to disclose payments made to a co- broker in two separate transactions. Mr. Nicholas Cancel was hired by Respondents to process loans. Loan processing is limited to preparing the documentation necessary to close a loan. Mr. Cancel is a licensed mortgage broker who was employed by a broker other than Respondents. Respondents failed to disclose payments made to Mr. Cancel in his capacity as an independent broker in the mortgage loans to the Lynch's and Mr. Jason. Failure To Maintain Books And Records And Failure To Cooperate Respondents failed to maintain books and records at the principal place of business. Respondents maintained only one business location. When Petitioner's investigator visited Respondents' office and asked for the books and records, Henson told the investigator that there were no books and records at the office. Petitioner subsequently served Respondents with a subpoena to produce Dupont's books and records. Respondents produced 57 mortgage files and some banking records. The files produced by Respondents were incomplete. Most contained only brochures. No files were produced on the Shuster and Linker transactions. During the investigation Henson represented to the investigator that he was neither president nor a corporate officer of Dupont. However, Henson repeatedly signed loan application and loan closing documents as president of Dupont including the Smith, Robeck, and Shuster transactions. Henson also entered into numerous co-brokerage arrangements as president of Dupont including arrangements with Mr. Cancel and Ms. Patricia Towers, president of Towers Mortgage Corporation, 6971 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida 33487. Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation, And Gross Negligence Respondents' intent to defraud and deceive the public is evidenced by a consistent pattern and practice of incompetence, gross negligence, misrepresentation, and failure to disclose material facts in multiple transactions over an extended period of time. Respondents knew or should have known that the acts committed by them constituted violations of law. Respondents violations resulted in financial loss to numerous individuals and to the public generally. Respondents failed to comply with agreements voluntarily executed by them and failed to pay amounts due under judgments duly entered against them by Florida courts. Respondents failed to cooperate with state investigators and failed to maintain books, records, and escrow accounts required by law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner issue a final order revoking the license of Respondent, Henson, and revoking the registration of Respondent, Dupont. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of September 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September 1992.
The Issue The Respondents have been charged with multiple violations of Chapter 494, (1987), the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act, and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to the act. The violations, described in an amended administrative complaint dated April 16, 1990, are as follows: Rule 3D-40.006(5), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to issue a statement signed by both parties, when receiving a deposit on a mortgage loan, regarding disposition of the deposit and other matters. Section 494.08(10), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(2), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to provide a written statement with a summary of limits and conditions for recovery from the Mortgage Broker Guaranty Fund. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.008(1), F.A.C.: Respondents assessed fees for credit reports, phone calls, appraisals and courier services, which fees were not supported by the files. Section 494.055(1)(0), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(4), F.A.C.: The department had to issue a subpoena for compensation records. Section 494.055(1)(g) and (p), and Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Borrowers were required to pay higher closing costs than were disclosed on the good faith estimate form. Section 494.08(5), F.S.: Respondents failed to secure executed modified mortgage loan applications from the borrowers or to return excess monies to the borrowers. Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.091(1), F.A.C.: Respondents accepted deposits from loan applicants but failed to obtain executed mortgage broker agreements which would disclose the cost of the loans. Sections 494.055(1)(b) and (g), and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c), and (4), F.S.: Respondents failed to disclose that they would retain both origination fees and discount points as their compensation, and failed to disclose compensation received from the lender in addition to brokerage fees assessed the borrowers on the closing statements. Section 494.055(1)(b), F.S., Section 494.08(5), F.S. and Sections 494.093(3)(a), (b), (c) and (4), F.S.: Respondents collected a servicing release fee from the borrowers when the Respondents were not the lender, and failed to disclose the collection. Section 494.055(1)(e), F.S. and Rule 3D-40.006(b)(a), F.A.C.: Respondents failed to maintain an escrow account.
Findings Of Fact Inlet Mortgage Company, Ltd. ("IMC") is a mortgage brokerage business operating under license #HB65002147500. Its place of business is 700 Virginia Avenue, Suite 105, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982. John Davis is the principal mortgage broker of Respondent IMC, operating under license #HA246700273. He has been licensed in Florida since approximately 1987, and opened his business in February 1988. As authorized by Section 494.065(1), F.S. (1987), the Department of Banking and Finance ("department") conducted an examination of the affairs of the Respondents for the time period February 1988 through June 1, 1988. The examination was completed on July 5, 1988, with a written report. At the time of the examination Respondents had closed only four loans and had another six in progress. The audit was conducted because a loan processor working for IMC had applied for her mortgage broker license, and her application seemed to imply that she was already practicing mortgage brokering. The audit cleared up this question and the processor was not found to be operating improperly. However, Timothy Wheaton, the department examiner, found other violations by IMC. When an audit or review is conducted by the department, the agency staff first interviews the person in charge to explain the review and to learn about the company. The staff then looks at the licenses, reviews files of closed and active loans, and examines books and accounts, payroll records, and the like. Generally, a sampling of loan files is selected from the broker's loan log, but in this first review all loans were reviewed, as so few existed. The staff writes a preliminary report and conducts an exit interview to let the broker know its findings. Later, a formal report is completed and provided to the broker, who has thirty days to respond. Timothy Wheaton conducted his review of IMC and John Davis at the company office in Ft. Pierce on June 3, 1988 and June 7, 1988. At some point on June 3rd, Wheaton was reviewing compensation records to determine how the broker, his partner and the loan processor were paid. Davis had checkbooks available, but the accountant had not prepared his books as the office had just opened. Wheaton had questions as to whether the checkbooks were all that was available; when he asked for the payroll records, Davis told him he would have to subpoena them. Wheaton returned on Monday with a subpoena and was given the same records as before. Davis admits that he made the demand for the subpoena. He was piqued because he was very busy when the audit staff arrived, and when he suggested they return later, he felt they wrongfully impugned his motives and accused him of hiding something. Respondent Davis has admitted to several "technical" violations or oversights in the loan files at the time of the first review. A summary of the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund was not being provided, but has been provided since the first audit. Deposits for credit report, appraisal fees and other costs were collected from the borrowers, but the files did not include a statement, signed by the borrowers, describing disposition of the funds in the event that the loan was not consummated, or the term of the agreement. After the first audit Davis has provided such a form statement and has included it in each file. On three closed loans, and one that was still pending, the files did not include documentation to support minimal (i.e., $25.00, $10.00, $6.56) fees for phone calls and courier fees, or fees were collected which exceeded the documentation in the file. Davis explained that these are charges made by the closing attorney, and the files now document those expenses. The difference between what was collected for a credit report and what was spent was returned to the borrower. (For example, $20.30 was returned to borrower, G. Stewart). In three loans closed at the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC received as compensation both the origination fee and a portion of the discount points. In the McCurdy loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($600.00), plus one half of the 1 percent discount fee ($300.00). In the Alexander loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($469.00), plus a .75 percent discount fee ($351.75). In the Stewart loan, IMC received its 1 percent origination fee ($612.00), plus 1/2 percent discount fee ($306.00). In each case, the Good Faith Estimate form provided to the borrowers disclosed the fees separately and did not break out which portion of the loan discount would be paid to the lender and which portion would be paid to IMC. The origination fee is sometimes called the broker's fee, although some banks also collect the fee when a mortgage broker is not involved. Discount points are a one-time payment to a lender to increase its yield on the loan. They are a percentage of the loan, paid up front, to reduce the interest rate over the term of the loan. These are distinctly different forms of charges to the borrower. Davis claims that he explained orally to each borrower how much compensation he would receive. The borrowers do not remember the specifics of that explanation, but rather consider the total origination fee and discount fee as their cost of the loan. They knew that the broker was going to be compensated for his services and understood that compensation would come from those fees in some unspecified manner. Davis claims that he checked with some lenders who told him that it was standard practice for part of the broker's compensation to be called a "discount" fee. He considered it a tax advantage to the borrower, as discount fees could be deductible, just as interest is deductible. During the audit, Davis discussed his compensation practice with the agency staff, who explained that, whatever it is called, the broker's compensation had to be fully disclosed to the borrower at the time of application on the Good Faith Estimate form. Between June 3rd and June 7th, Davis attempted to redisclose his compensation to the borrowers, but this resulted in unsigned disclosure forms in the file when the agency review staff returned on June 7th to complete the audit. At the time of the first audit, Davis and IMC maintained an escrow account for the deposits received from applicant/borrowers for audit reports, appraisal fees and other costs. Davis later closed his escrow account because he felt it was costing him money and because he did not consider the funds he received at the time of application to be escrow deposits. In most cases, the credit report and appraisal and other relevant services were ordered the same day as the loan application. Whether the loan was eventually consummated, the customer was still responsible for paying the charge if the services were provided. This is disclosed in a statement at the bottom of the Good Faith Estimate form and in a separate "Notice to Borrower", signed by the applicant which, since the first audit, is maintained in the loan file. According to the Notice to Borrower, if the loan is cancelled or denied, and the services have not been performed, the funds will be returned to the customer, less any cancellation charge by the appraisal or credit firm. These funds are deposits. When the escrow account was closed, Davis deposited the money for appraisals and credit report in his operating account. After services were rendered and an invoice received, he would pay the bill. Barbara Janet (Jan) Hutchersien, conducted the department's second audit of IMC in January 1990. This review covered the period from July 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. John Davis provided the boxes of loans and bank records and loan log. The auditor used the logs to review a sample of loans from each lender with whom IMC works. The bank records were used to trace funds reflected in the loan files. Ms. Hutchersien found, and noted in her examination report, that no escrow account was maintained, although deposits were received in a sample of loan applications. In the Fishman loan, which closed on 4/11/89, closing costs were disclosed by IMC as $1,822.00 on the Good Faith Estimate form dated 1/12/89, yet those costs actually amounted to $2,075.00, disclosed at closing on the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Settlement form, for a difference of $253.00. In determining consistency between a good faith estimate and actual closing costs, the agency staff looks at items which are predeterminable costs. In the Fishman case, the estimate for survey was $225.00, but the actual cost was $400.00, due, according to John Davis, to an oddly-shaped lot. In two loans financed by Greentree Mortgage Corporation, IMC received a substantial fee from the lender, which fee was not disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, on the HUD Settlement form, or anywhere in writing to the borrower. File documents call these fees "discount for pricing". In the Meslin loan, closed on 8/11/89, the fee from the lender to broker was $432.00; in the Krueger loan, closed on 7/21/89, the payment was $820.00. These paybacks are called "par plus pricing", a relatively new (within the last five years) form of loan pricing. Par plus pricing allows a borrower who does not wish to pay cash at closing, but who would qualify for a higher interest rate in terms of monthly payments, to avoid paying discount points fee at closing. Instead, the lender pays the points to the broker, and the borrower gets a higher interest rate. This is contrasted with the discount point system where the borrower pays cash points at closing in return for a lower interest rate. Par plus pricing can work to the advantage to all parties: The borrower avoids a large cash outlay at closing, the lender enjoys a higher interest rate over the term of the loan, and the broker receives his money from the lender. The borrower, however, should understand his options, including the option to pay cash at closing for a lower interest rate. Davis did not disclose the payback from the lender in writing because that is the way he says he was told to handle the loan by Greentree's representative. Davis told the borrowers that he was getting his money from the lender. He did not, however, explain that the borrower would be paying a higher interest rate in return, and Roger Krueger did not understand why his loan was at 10 1/4 percent, rather than 9 3/4 percent, which he thought was the going rate at the time of closing. IMC also received funds from the lender in the Barnes loan, closed on 12/30/88. Cobb Financial Partners was the original lender, yet they paid IMC a service release fee ordinarily paid by one lender to another for release of servicing a loan. Although the fee from Cobb to IMC was not disclosed in writing to the borrowers, the Barnes' were told that the fee for IMC's services would come from the lender, rather from them. They were told, and it is disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate form, and on the HUD Settlement Form, that Cobb Partners Financial was paid $900.00 (1.25 percent loan discount) by the borrowers. Of this, $810.00 was returned by Cobb to IMC. John Davis concedes that Cobb, not IMC, was the lender and was not "comfortable" with how Cobb told him to handle his fee. He has not done business with Cobb since this loan and was simply trying to avoid having to charge his fee to Barnes, who had just arrived in town to become the newspaper editor. The borrowers who were the subject of the files in which the agency found violations generally did business with Davis and IMC because they thought he would get the best deal for them. They were financially unsophisticated and trusted him to represent them. They understood that he was being paid for his services and felt that he should be paid. Except for Mr. Krueger, they were generally satisfied with their mortgage rates. The mortgage broker's fiduciary responsibility is to the borrower, rather than the lender, although he must deal fairly and honestly with the lender. The service that the broker provides to the borrower is his knowledge and his ability to shop for the best product. Par plus pricing and other mechanisms by which the broker receives his fee in whole or part from the lender are not considered by the department to be a violation of standards governing the practice of mortgage brokerage, so long as the customer is fully apprised of his options and is informed of the role of those payments in the product or service they are receiving. The Barnes' and Kruegers clearly were not so apprised, nor does the record establish that the Meslins were informed, although they did not testify. Categorizing brokerage fees or compensation as "discount points" is patently misleading, as discount points are used to buy down an interest rate. When the points are diverted instead to the broker, the consumer does not receive the loan for which he has paid. John Davis admits certain technical violations, but unequivocally denies that he wilfully misled his customers or committed fraud. Since the second audit, he has restored his escrow account. He now discloses his compensation as brokers fees rather than discount points, and has learned how to disclose in writing the par plus pricing loans. In considering certain violations as "technical", and in recommending a penalty in this case, the undersigned has considered Respondents' willingness to correct the errors addressed by the department and Respondents' inexperience at the time of the first audit. Although he was involved in banking, insurance, and accounting, John Davis had not practiced mortgage brokering before moving to Florida and starting his business. In his early practice, as evidenced by his own testimony, he was willing to rely on the advice of lenders, rather than to seek guidance from his licensing authority. He misconceived his role as being jointly responsible to the borrowers and lenders with whom he worked, rather than a primary fiduciary duty to the borrowers, his clients. Although the concealment of compensation as discount points was a willful misrepresentation, the record establishes a pattern of ignorance, albeit inexcusable, rather than fraud.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered, finding that Respondents violated Sections 494.055(1)(e), (o), and (q), F.S. (1987); Sections 494.08(5) and (10), F.S. (1987); and Section 494.093(4), F.S. (1987), and imposing a penalty of $1,000.00 fine, and one year probation, with the conditions that Respondent Davis successfully complete a specified amount and type of professional short course work and undergo periodic review and supervision by the agency. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 30th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 6. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Rejected as redundant. - 8. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence except as found in paragraph 6. The department was required to obtain a subpoena due to Respondents' feigned or real refusal to produce certain records. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. - 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. Rejected as immaterial. The telephone charges were incurred by the closing agent, not Respondents. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. and Rejected as unnecessary and - 48. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 49. - 52. Adopted in summary in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 20. 59 - 74. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16-19. Rejected as unnecessary. The conclusion that the handling of "par plus pricing" was fraudulent is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 77. - 81. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 21. 82. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 83. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 12. 84. Adopted in paragraph 10. 85. - 89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90. Adopted in paragraph 22. 91. - 93. Rejected as unnecessary. 94. Adopted in part in paragraph 26. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 13. - 9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Liability for payment occurs when the service is rendered, as reflected in Respondent's "Notice to Borrower". Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. - 19. Adopted in summary in paragraph 8. 20. - 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary. - 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Included in conclusion of law number 9. Rejected as immaterial. - 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The terms implied that the loans would be at a discounted rate, but were not, because the "discount" (partial) went to the broker. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 20. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 501 Orlando, FL 32801 John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee St. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Dept. of Banking & Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Rm. 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
