The Issue The issues are whether the respondents violated Subsection 494.004(1), Florida Statutes (2001),1 by failing to file a written report with Petitioner that Bill Negron’s (Mr. Negron) real estate license had been permanently revoked for fraud and dishonest dealing, and, if so, what penalties, if any, should be imposed against the mortgage broker licenses of Mr. Negron and First American Mortgage & Financial Center, Inc. (First American).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for enforcing and administering the provisions of Chapter 494. Mr. Negron is licensed as a mortgage broker in the state. First American was licensed as a mortgage brokerage business in the state, but First American terminated its license on April 29, 2008. Mr. Negron is president, principal broker, and 100 percent owner of First American. First American is subject to disciplinary action for any statutory violations committed by Mr. Negron. On April 17, 2002, the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) found Mr. Negron guilty of fraud; dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device; culpable negligence; or breach of trust in any business transaction in Final Order BPR-2002-01624. The Final Order found the licensee had failed to account or deliver funds and failed to maintain trust funds in the real estate brokerage escrow account. The FREC Final Order permanently revoked Mr. Negron’s real estate license. The Final Order found that the licensee was guilty of a course of conduct or practices that show the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors may not be safely entrusted to the licensee. Each of the respondents had a statutory duty to notify Petitioner of the revocation order issued by FREC. The duty ensures that Petitioner will have an opportunity to make an independent determination of whether a licensee is continuously qualified for licensure as a mortgage broker. Neither of the respondents notified Petitioner of the revocation order by FREC. Mr. Negron had been licensed as a mortgage broker from December 22, 2003. Professional training included specific training pertaining to the requirement to report regulatory actions for fraud, dishonest dealing, and moral turpitude to Petitioner. The licensee knew, or should have known, from pre-licensing and continuing education courses, of the requirement to notify Petitioner of the revocation of his real estate license. Petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the disciplinary action against Mr. Negron from other public records. Petitioner does not share databases with FREC. Testimony from Petitioner’s witness that it would have been virtually impossible for Petitioner’s employees to unilaterally uncover the existence of the revocation order was credible and persuasive to the trier of fact. Mr. Negron testified that he dictated a notification letter to his secretary and assumed she mailed it to Petitioner. The trier of fact finds that testimony to be neither credible nor persuasive. The record of the FREC proceeding evidences multiple offenses over a period of time that represent prior disciplinary history which preceded the revocation order by FREC. The prior disciplinary history on which FREC relied is evidenced in this record. However, no finding is made based on that evidence because the prior disciplinary history is not alleged as a factual basis for the proposed agency action in this proceeding in either the Administrative Complaint or the Amended Administrative Complaint. The only relevant finding in this proceeding, based on the prior disciplinary history in the FREC proceeding, is that neither of the respondents notified Petitioner of the prior disciplinary history with FREC. The failure to notify Petitioner of the prior disciplinary action by FREC is consistent with the failure of the respondents to notify Petitioner of the entry of a revocation order by FREC and is considered solely for the purpose of determining the credibility of the testimony presented by the respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order permanently revoking the mortgage broker’s license of the two respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2009.
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 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 At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, (Department), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers in this state, and Respondent, Harriet Ijames, was a licensed mortgage broker. On February 17, 1989, Respondent entered into a Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department whereby she was placed on probation for 2 years for misconduct relating to the misappropriation of mortgage application fees, with the further requirement that she not act independently but under the supervision of a broker acceptable to the Department. On October 2, 1991, the Department filed a complaint against the Respondent alleging she had violated the terms of the prior Consent Order by conducting business as a mortgage broker without the requisite supervision. Thereafter, on April 29, 1992, Respondent entered into another Stipulation, Consent Agreement and Final Order with the Department regarding the October, 1991 complaint by which she was again placed on probation conditioned upon her operating only under the supervision of an approved broker. This latter Order provided that any violation thereof would be automatic grounds for immediate and summary revocation of her license and also imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00. The Final Order incorporating that agreement was issued by the Department on July 13, 1992. In May, 1992, Respondent was contacted by Rhudine M. McGhee, a resident of Tampa, who had been referred to her by a mutual acquaintance. Mrs. McGhee indicated she was interested in purchasing another house. Somewhat later, Respondent contacted Mrs. McGhee and told her of a friend who had a house for sale. She also gave Mrs. McGhee the addresses of some other houses in the area which were for sale. Mrs. McGhee did not like any of them. Thereafter, Respondent advised Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker, and that she would have a real estate broker contact her. Respondent also offered to provide Mrs. McGhee with listings of Resolution Trust Corporation foreclosures in the desired price range. Some time later, the broker referred by Respondent showed Mrs. McGhee a house she liked and she signed a contract to buy it. In the interim, Respondent had taken a credit application from the McGhees over the phone and followed up with a visit to the McGhee home. On May 13, 1992, during the visit to the McGhee residence, Respondent had Mrs. McGhee sign a loan application. On that same visit, she solicited and received from Mrs. McGhee a check for $300.00, payable to the Respondent and subsequently endorsed and cashed by her, which reflected the check was the application fee for a loan. She specifically asked that the check be made to her, personally. When Mrs. McGhee asked Respondent about the check, she was told it would be credited to the purchase price at time of closing. This was not done and it was only later, after a complaint was filed with the Department, that Mr. Brigliadora, the mortgage broker with whom she was affiliated, repaid the fee from his company's funds. Though at hearing Respondent denied she took a loan application fee or that the check she received was for that purpose or bore any notation to that effect when received, Mrs. McGhee is quite certain she put that notation on the check at her husband's direction at the time she gave it to Respondent. Respondent claimed the check was for finding the house but Mr. McGhee specifically recalls Respondent indicating the check was to be an application fee to be credited against the purchase price. It is so found. On June 1, 1992, Respondent again returned to the McGhee home to have them sign a second loan application. This time Mr. McGhee was not at home and Respondent suggested to Mrs. McGhee that she sign her husband's name to the application. This was done. Respondent did not give the McGhees copies of the applications they signed but said she would bring them copies at a later date. This was never done. Though Respondent also denies soliciting the second application, her apparent signature appears on both application forms and it is found she did both solicit and sign the forms and the application fee check. The first application was for a loan of $80,000.00 at 8.5 percent. The second was for $36,000.00 at 8.625 percent. At the time of the solicitation, Respondent was employed by Frank Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker and owner of the Money Tree Mortgage Co. However, neither Respondent nor Mr. Brigliadora had notified the Department of their arrangement or obtained Departmental approval of the supervisory relationship. Clearly, Respondent knew the taking of an application fee, as the evidence indicates she did here, was inappropriate. Sometime in mid 1992, Respondent approached George Banks, a licensed mortgage broker in Tampa and owner of his own brokerage company, with a view toward working for him. In their conversation about that, they discussed the practice of application fees. Respondent indicated she wanted to take a fee of $200.00 to $300.00 up front, but Banks felt this was not proper, advised her so, and declined to accept her as a broker. Even when she claimed that other brokers took fees of this nature, he demurred, claiming he did not endorse the practice. Respondent worked for Mr. Brigliadora, a licensed mortgage broker, at his firm, Money Street Mortgage, for approximately 3 months during 1992. At the time she went to work for him, Respondent did not tell him she was under sanctions by the Department to have strict supervision and at no time did he agree to the Departmental supervision program. Mr. Brigliadora did not receive the $300.00 check Respondent obtained from the McGhees nor did he ever get the money it represented from the Respondent. It was only just before or at the closing on the property that he first became aware of the deposit. When he refunded the money to the McGhees, Respondent agreed to reimburse him but she never did. Normally, Money Street Mortgage does not take application fees on residential loans, and Mr. Brigliadora denies he ever approved or suggested to Respondent that she solicit them. When Respondent gave him the documentation on the McGhee loan application it did not include the required good faith estimate found in the brokerage agreement nor did the application form or any other document make the required disclosures. The application he got from Respondent does not constitute a brokerage agreement and Mr. Brigliadora never got one from the Respondent on this loan. What he received is no more than an application for a loan. Mr. James, the Department's Area Financial Manager, whose job includes the assignment of examiners and the review of investigations by examiners, knows Respondent as a licensed mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. He is aware of prior complaints received by the Department about the Respondent in the past. Two of them relate to the Final Orders previously mentioned herein. In the instant case, he recalls receiving a telephone call regarding a deposit of $300.00 given to Respondent and commenced an investigation into the incident. The current Administrative Complaint which resulted in this hearing was the outcome of that investigation. Based on his evaluation of the matters discovered in the investigation, he concluded that Respondent took a fee from a client without having a brokerage agreement with that client; failed to make the required full disclosure to a client; and misappropriated a fee which she received from a client; all of which are violations of various provisions of Chapter 494. In his official capacity with the Department, Mr. James had the duty to approve a supervisory mortgage broker for the Respondent as called for in the two prior Final Orders referred to previously herein. Neither Money Street Mortgage nor Mr. Brigliadora were submitted by Respondent for approval by the Department even though Respondent knew she was required to do so. Respondent claims she made it very clear to Mrs. McGhee that she was a mortgage broker and not a real estate broker. Nonetheless, Mrs. McGhee, she claims, insisted Respondent help her and offered to pay her for her efforts. Respondent claims that all Petitioner's witnesses lied about her and forged documents relating to her alleged activities. She denies she would ever cheat or disobey the rules because she knows she would lose her license if she did. Claiming she is well respected in the community, she asserts the Department did not thoroughly investigate the allegations against her and is, therefore, destroying her reputation over something which did not happen as alleged. Her assertions are not accepted, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case finding her guilty of the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein; revoking Harriett Ijames' license as a mortgage broker in Florida; and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 24th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa L. Elwell, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Harriett Ijames 8341 Paddlewheel Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Homesafe Mortgage Company (Homesafe), initially known as FMC Mortgage Company, a Florida corporation, was established on May 24, 1990, and has, since its inception, been owned by Orlando Monteagudo and his wife, Omaida. On September 16, 1990, Homesafe applied to respondent, Department of Banking and Finance (Department), for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's application was approved, and its mortgage brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. A few days after Homesafe was licensed, the assets of another corporation wholly owned by Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, First Miami Investments Corporation (FMIC), discussed more fully infra, were transferred to it, and Homesafe assumed the mortgage business of FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle, and ceased doing business. On October 1, 1991, a new law, the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, became effective, which substantially changed the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, and required businesses desirous of engaging in activities as mortgage lenders to be licensed as such. The Act also required such licensure for entities engaged in the business of servicing loans, if they proposed to service loans for more than four months, whereas previously no license was required for such activity. As a consequence of the amendments to chapter 494, Homesafe filed a timely application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, that section provided: (1)(a) Any person in good standing who holds an active registration pursuant to former s. 494.039 . . . or any person who acted solely as a mortgage servicer on September 30, 1991, is eligible to apply to the department for a mortgage lender's license and is eligible for licensure if the applicant: 1. For at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, has engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both . . . . (Emphasis added) And, Section 494.001(17), Florida Statutes, defined a "person" to mean "an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other group, however organized." Also pertinent to an evaluation of Homesafe's application by the Department was Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, which provided: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as defined s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. By letter of April 13, 1992, the Department notified Homesafe of its intention to deny Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause." The basis for the Department's denial was it conclusion that Homesafe had not "engaged in the business of either acting as a seller or assignor of mortgage loans or as a servicer of mortgage loans, or both" for "at least 12 months during the period of October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1991, as required by the "Saving Clause," and that the provisions of Rule 3D-40.202 were not applicable to Homesafe's circumstances, such that credit for FMIC's activities could be accorded Homesafe. Subsequently, the Department amended its notice of denial to include, as an additional basis for denial, its contention that Homesafe violated the provisions of Section 494.0072(2)(k), Florida Statutes, by acting as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license. Homesafe filed a timely request for formal hearing and disputed the bases upon which the Department proposed to deny its application. Homesafe's activities and those of its predecessor in interest, FMIC Orlando Monteagudo, the chief executive officer and co-owner of Homesafe, has personally held an active license as a mortgage broker since 1984, and has, through various entities, been active in the mortgage brokerage business since that date, without unfavorable incident. On July 20, 1989, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo became the sole owners of OJM Enterprises, Inc. (OJM), then known as The R & M Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, through a structured buy out from his former partners, with whom Monteagudo apparently felt strong dissatisfaction. OJM was the parent company of First Mortgage Corporation (FMMC) and First Miami Investment Corporation (FMIC), both Florida corporations. FMMC had been licensed as a mortgage brokerage business since at least March 14, 1986; however, neither OJM nor FMIC were ever so licensed. 2/ In September 1990, Monteagudo, out of a desire to further distance himself from his former associates, and on the advice of his accountant as to the best way to wrap up the affairs of OJM, FMMC and FMIC, contemplated the merger of OJM and FMMC into FMIC by September 30, 1990, and the transfer of their assets and mortgage brokerage business activities to Homesafe, which until that time had been largely inactive. In furtherance of such plan, Homesafe, as heretofore noted, on September 16, 1990, applied to the Department for registration as a mortgage brokerage business under the provisions of Section 494.039, Florida Statutes (1989). Homesafe's brokerage business license was issued on October 24, 1990. In the interim, a merger agreement was executed on September 29, 1990, on behalf of FMMC, FMIC and The R & M Group, Inc., whereby the parties agreed to merge The R & M Group, Inc., and FMMC into FMIC. [Use of the name "The R & M Group, Inc.," OJM's former name, was a mistake and would lead to a delay in filing with the Secretary of State as discussed infra.] Under the agreement, which was to have been effective September 30, 1990, FMIC would be the surviving entity, and "all the estate, property, rights, privileges, powers, franchises, and interests of each of the . . . corporations" would be vested in FMIC as the surviving corporation, without further act or deed. Considering the restructuring that was occurring, the proof is persuasive that at least by October 1, 1990, and more probably at some unidentifiable date shortly prior thereto, Homesafe began to service mortgage loans on behalf of FMIC. Thereafter, by October 30, 1990, following approval of its application for a mortgage brokerage business license, Homesafe received the assets of FMIC and assumed the mortgage brokerage business that had previously been operated through the corporate group, now FMIC. At that time, FMIC became idle and ceased doing business. Notwithstanding their efforts to effect a technical merger by September 30, 1990, the Secretary of State, by letter of January 4, 1991, rejected the merger agreement because The R & M Group, Inc., had changed its name on September 4, 1990, to OJM Enterprises, Inc. Accordingly, the parties were advised to correct their agreement to properly reflect the corporate parties if they desired the Secretary of State to accept such filing. Consequently, on January 14, 1991, the parties executed an amended merger agreement that properly reflected the corporate parties as FMMC, FMIC and OJM Enterprises, Inc. That agreement was duly filed with the Secretary of State on January 18, 1991, and FMIC became, technically, the surviving corporation that date. Under the terms of that agreement, as with the initial agreement, Orlando and Omaida Monteagudo, as the sole owners of OJM, became the sole owners of FMIC. The Department's Rule 3D-40.202 Pertinent to this case, Rule 3D-40.202, Florida Administrative Code, provides: Eligibility for Application for Mortgage Lender License Pursuant to the Saving Clause. A mortgage brokerage business licensee which changes their business entity, such as the incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, shall be deemed the same "person" as deemed in s. 494.001(17), FS., for the purpose of determining eligibility pursuant to s. 494.0065, FS., provided the applicant is owned by the same person(s) holding the same ownership interest as the mortgage brokerage business licensee prior to any change in the resulting business entity. Here, the Department and Homesafe disagree as to the proper interpretation of the foregoing provision. The intent of the rule, according to the Department, was to permit those who were licensed as a mortgage brokerage business prior to the adoption of the "Mortgage Brokerage and Mortgage Lending Act," Chapter 91-245, Laws of Florida, but were not a corporate entity, to qualify under the "Saving Clause." Notably, under the amendments to chapter 494, only corporations are eligible for licensure as a mortgage lender. See Section 494.0061, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department interprets the rule to apply only when there has been an actual change in the form of the business entity, through incorporation of a sole proprietorship or partnership, and does not consider the rule applicable where, as here, a mere transfer of assets occurred between corporations. Contrasted with the Department's interpretation, Homesafe contends that the provisions of the rule are broad enough to cover the situation where, as here, the mortgage brokerage business of one corporation is assumed by another corporation, as long as the ownership interests remain the same. Under such interpretation, Homesafe and FMIC, the surviving corporation, would be considered the same "person" for purposes of determining eligibility under the "Saving Clause," and Homesafe could be credited, if necessary, with the time periods FMIC or its merged parts operated as a mortgage brokerage business to satisfy the "12-month" standard of the "Saving Clause." While Homesafe's interpretation may be a permissible interpretation of Rule 3D-40.202, so is the Department's. Indeed, the Department's interpretation of the rule is consistent with the intent of the rule and the doctrine of noscitur a sociis often applied as an aid to statutory construction. Under such circumstances, and for the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, deference is accorded the agency's interpretation. Homesafe's activities subsequent to October 1, 1991 Pertinent to the Department's charge that Homesafe has acted as a mortgage lender subsequent to October 1, 1991, without a current, active license, the proof demonstrates that since October 1, 1991, Homesafe has made between 120-170 mortgage loans, sold those loans to investors, and thereafter serviced the majority of those loans. In response, Monteagudo retorts that Homesafe was entitled to licensure under the "Saving Clause," and that it was entitled to and needed to continue its business pending Department approval of its application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered approving Homesafe's application for licensure as a mortgage lender pursuant to the "Saving Clause," Section 494.0065, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April 1993.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc. was a licensed corporate real estate broker having been issued license number 0218821 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate. Respondent Elliot Rosen held real estate broker's license number 0075258 issued by petitioner and was the qualifying officer of Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc. Respondents Stanleigh M. Franklin and Maria C. Franklin were licensed real estate salesmen in Rosen's office having been issued license numbers 0318042 and 0370308, respectively. The firm is located at 8120 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33155. On an undisclosed date Robert W. and Carol A. Bush listed for sale with Elliot Rosen Realty, Inc., a residential property located at 8295 Southwest 153rd Street, Miami. The initial asking price was $119,000, but this was later reduced to $112,000. In April 1984, Joseph and Maria Yanes were in the process of selling their home and were consequently seeking to purchase a new residence. Both are educated persons, and Mr. Yanes has a college degree. Mr. Yanes read a real estate advertisement which advertised the Bush's property. They contacted Rosen Realty, Inc. and spoke with Maria Franklin. After inspecting the house with Maria, the Franklins met with the Yanes on April 15, 1985, for the purpose of preparing and executing an offer to purchase the house. Joseph Yanes made clear to Stanleigh Franklin that his primary concern was obtaining a mortgage with monthly payments that did not exceed $1000 per month. Otherwise, he would not be able to purchase the property. Stanleigh was familiar with a new mortgage loan program offered by a local lender (American International Mortgage Company) known as the "7.5 magnet mortgage" which offered a monthly payment for the first three years at a 7.5 percent interest rate. Stanleigh computed the principal and interest payments under this plan to be $711.55 per month. When estimated taxes and insurance were added in the total payment came to approximately $850 per month. He also advised that a mortgage insurance premium would be charged each month, which he estimated to be $50 to $60 per month. This still totaled less than the $960 or $970 which the Yanes stated their existing mortgage to be. The Yanes were told that because of the low interest rate (7.5 percent) during the first 36 months, there would be negative amortization during that period of time. In other words, the principal amount owed would actually increase rather than decrease during the first three years since interest on the note was accruing at a higher rate (13 percent). Finally, Franklin advised the Yanes that a 5 percent down payment was required with this type of mortgage and that their deposit should equal this amount to qualify for the loan. The Yanes did not indicate any dissatisfaction with this type of financing, or that they did not understand how the plan worked, particularly with respect to the negative amortization. They agreed to make an offer of $107,000 on the property, to give a $500 deposit that day, and an additional $4850 later on which equated to 5 percent of the purchase price. The contract itself made no reference to the 7.5 percent financing, but provided only that the buyers would obtain a new first mortgage for the balance owed on the $107,000 purchase price. Throughout these negotiations, there was no misrepresentation of facts by Franklin concerning the mortgage or amount of deposit required. The Yanes' offer was quickly presented by the Franklins to the sellers who accepted the offer within the next few days. The Yanes then gave an additional $4850 deposit around May 1 which was deposited in Rosen's escrow account. On May 7, they filed a loan application with American International Mortgage Company and gave a check in the amount of $185 to have an appraisal made and a credit report prepared. At that time, the loan officer explained to Joseph Yanes in detail how the magnet mortgage program worked and that there would be negative amortization under this plan. The meeting lasted for an hour and a half and Yanes did not express surprise at how the mortgage worked, or that he did not understand its concept. An appraisal was then made, and a credit check run on Mr. Yanes. However, the lender was unable to confirm any credit information on Mrs. Yanes because her employer refused to return the employment verification form. On June 20, 1984, the lender sent a denial notice to the Yanes because of its inability to obtain information regarding Mrs. Yanes. The Yanes made no other efforts to obtain financing on the property. After they executed the contract to purchase, the Yanes engaged counsel in early May to represent them at closing. Their attorney (Lisa Wilson) called all pertinent parties, including the Franklins and Rosen to learn the details of the mortgage. After having the details explained to them again, the Yanes advised counsel that they wished to cancel the contract. On May 23, 1984, Wilson sent a certified letter to Stanleigh Franklin advising that because the financing arrangements had been misrepresented to her clients they were cancelling the contract. She also demanded a return of their deposit plus interest. Just prior to the receipt of the certified letter, Joseph Yanes also telephoned Stanleigh Franklin and demanded a return of his deposit. This was the first time Franklin suspected the deal had gone awry. Shortly after this, the Yanes contacted petitioner to file a complaint against respondents. When Mr. Bush learned that the Yanes were not honoring the contract, upon advice of counsel, Bush made a claim on the $5,350 deposit for breach of contract. Faced with conflicting demands for the deposit, Rosen contacted petitioner to determine how the deposit should be disbursed. The matter was eventually referred by petitioner to its local office in Miami for investigation in October 1984. On November 27, 1984, counsel for petitioner advised Rosen that because of the pending complaint of the Yanes, petitioner could not issue an escrow disbursement order. However, he was told of the remaining two alternatives for resolving the dispute prescribed in Subsection 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. A complaint for interpleader was later filed in circuit court by agreement of counsel for the Yanes, Bush, and Rosen. That complaint is still pending. Rosen, as broker, was never personally involved in the transaction until a complaint with petitioner was filed. He stood to gain no commission on the sale since the Franklins were working on a "100 percent basis" and were to receive the entire commission. Rosen has been licensed for some thirty-one years and has had no prior disciplinary action in all that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1985.
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 These administrative proceedings involve three related cases which were consolidated for purposes of proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings. DOAH Case No. 87-3299 began on or about May 13, 1987, with the issuance of an Administrative Complaint and Notice of Rights by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (hereinafter "Department"), against Respondents Mid South Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter "Mid South"), Carolyn G. Stanley (hereinafter "Stanley"), William D. Hughes (hereinafter "Hughes"), John Childers (hereinafter "Childers"), and Janie Cincotta (hereinafter "Cincotta"). An Amended Administrative Complaint was filed later. The Amended Administrative Complaint charges the Respondents with nine counts of violations of the Mortgage Brokerage Act, Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. In addition to the Administrative Complaint, on about May 13, 1987, the Department issued a Cease and Desist Order and Notice of Rights against Childers and Cincotta, which was docketed as DOAH 87-3300, and a second Cease and Desist Order and Notice of Rights against Mid South, which was docketed as DOAH Case No. 87-3301. The Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 87-3299 was never served on Cincotta. At the commencement of the formal hearing, the Department announced that it was not pursuing the Administrative Complaint against Cincotta. The Cease and Desist Order in Case No. 87-3300 was served on Cincotta. At the commencement of the formal hearing, Cincotta confirmed that she did not contest the Cease and Desist Order in Case No. 87-3300. Prior to the formal hearing, Hughes and the Department entered into a stipulation for the disposition of all issues in DOAH Case No. 87-3299 that relate to Hughes. Following the hearing in this case, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed. Thereafter the Department filed proposed recommended orders in all three of these consolidated cases. The Respondents have not filed any proposed recommended orders. The Department's proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact are contained in the appendix which is attached hereto.
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Preliminary Factual Findings Mid South is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. Mid South has been and is conducting business in the State of Florida as a mortgage brokerage business pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having been issued license No. HB-592335611. Mid South has been and is conducting business in the State of Florida as a mortgage brokerage business at 1815 West 15th Street, Suite 8, Panama City, Florida 32407. Persons Employed by Mid South John Childers From October 1983 until present, Childers has been employed at Mid South. Childers is President of Mid South and a 50 percent shareholder of Mid South. Childers is the chief executive officer in charge of running Mid South in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. Childers is not now, nor has he ever been, licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Although Childers explained to Carolyn G. Stanley, the designated Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South, that she was in charge of the offices of Mid South, Childers assumed the responsibility of overseeing the mortgage brokerage business of Mid South, because Stanley did not have time to do so. In the event a borrower became angry because his interest rates were increased above what was agreed to, it was Childers who would try to "work out a deal" with the borrower by reducing the points. Ann King Beach From on or about July 25, 1985, Ann King Beach was the Designated Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB-16762. From on or about September 1, 1985, Ann King Beach ceased to be employed by Mid South. Janie Cincotta Cincotta was employed by Mid South in Pensacola, Florida, for two different periods of time. The first period of employment began on or about September 1985 and ended on or about February 1986. From on or about September 1985 through on or about February 1986, the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South was continuously open. Cincotta's second period of employment with Mid South began on or about October 1986 and ended on or about March 1987. From on or about the end of October 1986 to on or about March 1987, the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South was continuously open. Cincotta's job responsibilities included the same responsibilities as those of Linda Banquicio, described below, and more. Cincotta would send out the verifications, work up the Good Faith Estimate, type the application, answer the telephone, and interview the applicants. Childers was aware of Cincotta's job responsibilities. Cincotta was compensated by Mid South. Cincotta was not licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. William D. Hughes From on or about September 19, 1985, the Mid South office at 692 Heinberg Street, Pensacola, Florida, was licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB-17159. From on or about September 19, 1985, William D. Hughes was designated as the broker in full charge, control, and supervision of the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South. Hughes terminated his employment with Mid South on or about April 15, 1986. On or about April 1, 1986, Hughes informed Childers that he was terminating his employment with Mid South. By letter dated September 2, 1986, Mid South notified the Department that Hughes was no longer employed by Mid South. On or about October 14, 1986, Hughes filed an Application for Registration as a Branch Office for the Pensacola, Florida, location of Mid South. On or about December 15, 1986, Hughes became the Designated Associate Broker at the branch office of Mid South, having license No. HT-9017. Said branch office was assigned license No. HL-1724. On or about April 1, 1987, Hughes notified the Department that he had terminated his employment with Mid South. Although Hughes became licensed with the Department as the Designated Associated Broker at the Pensacola, Florida, branch office of Mid South, he never actually worked there in that capacity. During the second period of Cincotta's employment, Childers knew that Hughes was not working at the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South. At the end of October or the beginning of November 1986, Childers told Cincotta that if Hughes received a telephone call, she was to respond that Hughes was not in. Thereafter, Childers would return the telephone call for Hughes. The reason for the foregoing instructions was to prevent Mid South from getting "into trouble," because Mid South did not have a licensed broker in the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South. Hughes received commissions only on the loans that he brought into Mid South. Hughes did not receive a commission on any other mortgage loan that was processed through the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South and which was considered to be a "house loan." There appear to have been two types of house loans on which Hughes did not receive commissions during his employment at Mid South. The first type was mortgage loans referred to Mid South from Source Mortgage wherein Source Mortgage shared a brokerage fee with Mid South. The other type of house loan involved borrowers who sought the services of Mid South, but did not initiate the mortgage loan process through either Hughes or Source Mortgage. Kenneth E. Boles From on or about November 20, 1985, Kenneth E. Boles was designated Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB- 17651. From on or about July 24, 1986, Kenneth E. Boles ceased to be employed by Mid South. Linda Banquicio Linda Banquicio began working in the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South from on or about June 13, 1986, to on or about August 22, 1986. Banquicio was employed at Mid South to answer the telephone, type, inform borrowers of the interest rates, provide loan application forms to borrowers, assist borrowers in filling out the loan applications, type the verification forms to be mailed out, and fill in the estimated closing costs on the Good Faith Estimate. Childers was aware of Banquicio's job responsibilities. Banquicio was not licensed pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Carolyn G. Stanley From on or about January 13, 1986, Carolyn G. Stanley was designated as Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, having license No. HB- 16762. Stanley was employed as Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South in Panama City, Florida. As Principal Mortgage Broker of Mid South, Stanley did not take any action to oversee the offices of Mid South other than the Panama City, Florida, office where she was employed, because Childers had assumed that responsibi1ity. From on or about July 8, 1987, Stanley ceased to be employed by Mid South. Harold J. Larrieu, Jr. Harold J. Larrieu, Jr., filed an application to act as broker at the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South on or about August 25, 1986, but he withdrew his application on or about September 9, 1986. Advertisements of Mid South On April 27, May 4, 11, 18, and 25, 1986, Mid South advertised fixed rate financing in the Pensacola News Journal without stating the address of Mid South or that Mid South was a licensed mortgage broker. On June 29 and July 6, 13, 20, 27, and August 24, 1986, Mid South advertised fixed rate financing in the Pensacola News Journal. Lock-ins During Cincotta's second period of employment, it was the practice of Mid South to lock-in interest rates for a period of sixty days. However, few, if any, of the mortgage loans would close within that sixty-day lock-in period. Excessive Charges The following charges incurred are in excess of the costs disclosed to the following borrowers at the time Mid South accepted the application with respect to said borrowers: Borrower/cost Amount disclosed at time deposit or application Amount description accepted charged Michael A. Adam Discount/Origination Fee $2,384.00 2,460.00 Appraisal 200.00 225.00 Title Insurance 476.80 500.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Intangible tax 119.20 123.00 Doc. Stamps 89.40 92.25 Insurance 64.84 246.00 Thomas E. Almon Discount/Origination Fees 4,200.00 4,900.00 Recording 15.00 25.00 Survey 100.00 125.00 Pest Inspection 10.00 15.00 Copy Fee 0 6.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Jimmy M. Avera Title Insurance 425.00 496.60 R.E. Tax 217.87 293.16 Survey 150.00 225.00 Exp. Mail 0 24.75 ASMT 0 5.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Gloria F. Bates Survey 200.00 375.00 Title Insurance 650.00 736.00 Darrell R. Bond Appraisal 200.00 250.00 Title Insurance 326.00 381.00 Pest Inspection 25.00 40.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Fed. Express 0 12.50 Long Distance 0 10.00 Randy K. Burelson Hazard Insurance 0 210.00 Survey 83.00 150.00 David K. Bush Appraisal 175.00 200.00 Title Insurance 320.00 325.00 Survey 75.00 90.00 Pest Inspection 35.00 40.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 City/County Tax 0 30.00 State Tax 0 40.00 James H. Cameron Survey 150.00 525.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Recording Fees 27.00 509.00 Sharon L. Cook Appraisal 125.00 200.00 Title Insurance 320.00 400.00 Thomas Elder Discount/Origin Fees 1,662.50 1,805.00 Hazard Insurance 0 326.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 Willie C. Mixon PMI Insurance 370.58 670.12 Hazard Insurance 0 186.00 Doc. Preparation 0 200.00 John W. Whalen Survey 100.00 200.00 Betty A. Wilson Pest Inspection 25.00 40.00 Appraisal 0 250.00 Credit Report 0 35.00 Document Preparation Fees In addition to receiving brokerage fees, Mid South received a document preparation fee in the following amounts involving the below-noted borrowers although there is no documentation to indicate that the document preparation fee was disbursed to a third party. Borrower Amount Michael A. Adams $200.00 Thomas Almon 150.00 Jimmy M. Avera 200.00 Gloria F. Bates 150.00 Darrell R. Bond 150.00 Randy K. Burelson 200.00 David K. Bush 150.00 James H. Cameron 150.00 Sharon L. Cook 150.00 Thomas Elder 200.00 Edward E. Jackson 200.00 Willie C. Mixon 150.00 Russell O. Paul 200.00 John D. Reeder 150.00 John W. Whalen 150.00 Betty A. Wilson 150.00 In the following mortgage loan transactions brokered by Mid South, the Closing Statement failed to disclose the name of the broker or co-broker paid. Borrower Amount of brokerage fee Actual recipient of brokerage fee Michael A. Adams $2,460.00 Mid South Thomas E. Almon 4,900.00 unknown Jimmy M. Avera 584.00 Alabama Federal 1,168.00 Alabama Federal Gloria F. Bates 1,840.00 First Southern Savings 1,840.00 Mid South Darrell R. Bond 816.00 First Southern Savings 816.00 Mid South David K. Bush 400.00 First Southern Savings 400.00 Mid South James H. Cameron 2,000.00 First Southern Savings 200.00 Mid South Sharon L. Cook 800.00 First Southern Savings 800.00 Mid South Willie C. Mixon 494.00 Source Mortgage 1,482.35 Mid South and First Southern Savings Russell O. Paul 424.00 unknown 424.00 unknown John W. Whalen 646.65 First Southern Savings 646.65 Mid South 431.10 Source Mortgage Betty A. Wilson 1,088.00 First Southern Savings 1,088.00 Mid South Edwards Transaction Robert Edwards is a contractor who does remodeling, renovations, and room additions on residences. Edwards located a residence, which was run down and had been abandoned for two years but was in a nice neighborhood and on a beautiful wooded lot. The purchase price of the house was $19,000. With $10,000 to $15,000 of renovations put into the house, it could have been sold for approximately $45,000 at a profit of between $11,000 to $16,000. On or about early June 1986, Edwards called Mid South to inquire about the possibility of borrowing enough money to purchase and renovate the house. During that telephone conversation, an unidentified employee of Mid South told Edwards that he would have to discuss his proposal with Childers, but if his credit checked out, it would take from two to four weeks to close the loan. In early July 1986, Edwards met with Childers to discuss his proposal. At that meeting, Childers reviewed the proposal and "said he thought it would fly, that it was a good idea." Edwards thereupon filled out a credit application, was given a loan application to complete, and was told by Banquicio to sign a blank Good Faith Estimate. Subsequent to the early July 1986 meeting, Edwards completed the paperwork and informed Banquicio that he did not want to obtain an appraisal before he had qualified for the loan. Thereafter, Banquicio informed Edwards that Childers had indicated that Edwards should have the appraisal done because the loan looked good. In reliance on the foregoing representation, Edwards had an appraisal done on the residence on August 26, 1986, at a cost of $250. On or about September 3, 1986, Edwards went to the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South to seek assistance in obtaining his mortgage loan, at which time Stanley provided him his first completed Good Faith Estimate. At that time Stanley informed Edwards that all he had to do was wait for the closing and that Mid South would be getting in contact with him. However, contrary to Stanley's representation, Mid South never contacted him, so he began calling the Mobile, Alabama, office of Mid South, but was unable to speak to Childers. Shortly thereafter, the residence was sold to another purchaser, because Edwards had been unable to obtain his mortgage loan. At no time did Mid South inform Edwards that he did not make enough money to get the mortgage loan. Suhrheinrich Transaction During late June or early July 1986, Robert Suhrheinrich contacted Banquicio, an employee of Mid South, by telephone in order to apply for a mortgage loan. During the telephone conversation, Banquicio agreed to try to obtain a mortgage loan for Suhrheinrich. Prior to July 13, 1986, Suhrheinrich obtained a letter from Childers. The letter indicates that Suhrheinrich was eligible for a 15 year mortgage loan at an interest rate of 9 3/4 percent. Subsequent to receiving that letter, Suhrheinrich obtained from Mid South a Good Faith Estimate that indicated the interest rate was now 9 percent, a Request for Verification of Employment dated July 24, 1986, and a document entitled Loan Package Instructions, which states, in part, "If you have any questions regarding the information requested, please feel free to call John Childers at (904) 438-9760." During this period, Childers indicated to Suhrheinrich that he could obtain 90 percent loan to value. Thereafter, sometime in October 1986, Childers contacted Suhrheinrich and indicated that the mortgage loan was ready to close, but that the interest rate was about 10 percent and that he could give Suhrheinrich a loan of only 80 percent to value. Prior to the conversation wherein Suhrheinrich was told that the loan was ready to close, Suhrheinrich was never informed that the interest rate might be changed from the 9 percent figure disclosed to him on the Good Faith Estimate, or that a 90 percent loan to value could note be obtained. As a result of Mid South's increasing the interest rate to approximately 10 percent, Suhrheinrich did not obtain the mortgage loan because at that rate it did not pay to refinance his first and second mortgages. Further, the 80 percent loan to value offered by Mid South did not meet Suhrheinrich's needs. In reliance on the representation Mid South made to Suhrheinrich, he spent a total of $400 on an appraisal, survey, and termite inspection. Ward Transaction On or about August 3, 1986, Mary Ward contacted Banquicio, an employee of Mid South, by telephone and inquired about obtaining a mortgage loan. On or about August 21, 1986, pursuant to Banquicio's request, Ward went to the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South and filled out various documents in order to obtain the mortgage loan. During September 1986, Ward went to the Pensacola, Florida, office of Mid South to obtain her paperwork, because she had not been able to speak with Childers to find out whether she had been approved. Sitting in the office was an individual whom Banquicio identified as being Mid South's broker. Although Ward requested to speak to the individual identified as being Mid South's broker, Banquicio did not accommodate said request. Meinscher Transaction On or about August 18, 1986, Alacia Meinscher contacted Banquicio, an employee of Mid South, to obtain a mortgage loan. Banquicio agreed to attempt to obtain a mortgage loan for Meinscher. Meinscher filled out an application and, pursuant to Banquicio's request, signed a blank Good Faith Estimate. Approximately a week after filling out the application, Childers informed Meinscher the amount of the points that she would be charged and that the interest rate would be 9 3/4 percent. Childers and Banquicio informed Meinscher that it would take approximately twenty-one days for a determination as to whether Meinscher could obtain a mortgage loan. After waiting approximately sixty days for an indication from Mid South as to whether Meinscher could obtain a mortgage loan, Meinscher "gave up" on Mid South and went to another company. Meyers Transaction On or about October 10, 1986, Donald Meyers contacted Cincotta, an employee of Mid South, by telephone and inquired about the possibility of obtaining a $75,000 mortgage loan. During that conversation, Cincotta indicated that Mid South was offering an 8 1/2 percent fixed rate for thirty years. On or about October 28, 1986, Meyers met with Cincotta in the Pensacola, Florida, offices of Mid South and filled out a loan application form. At the October 28, 1986, meeting, Cincotta indicated that Mid South could obtain a mortgage loan for Meyers and she gave Meyers a Good Faith Estimate disclosing an interest rate of 8.5 percent and 2 points. The interest rate on the Good Faith Estimate has since been altered to read 9.5, whereas it originally was 8.5 when the document was prepared. At the October 28, 1986, meeting, Cincotta represented that, unless there was some unforeseen situation, the mortgage loan could close within 30 to 60 days. Cincotta locked in Meyers' mortgage loan for 60 days at 8 1/2 percent and 2 points. After the 60 day lock-in expired, Cincotta did not relock Meyers' rate, because the practice was that, once the loan had been submitted to Childers, Childers handled the lock-ins if they expired. On or about November 1986, Meyers received a second Good Faith Estimate Which indicated an interest rate of 8.5 percent and 2 points. On or about February 17, 1987, Meyers went to the offices of O. Gwen King for the closing. At the closing, the loan documents shows an interest rate of 9 1/2 percent with 2 1/2 points. At the closing, Meyers, by telephone, spoke to Childers who indicated that the loan of 8 1/2 percent plus 2 points was not available, but that he could lower the points on the 9 1/2 percent loan. After further discussions with Childers, Meyers left the February 17, 1987, meeting without closing. On or about April 7, 1987, Meyers requested by letter that his loan file (including the loan application, credit report, and appraisal) be returned to him. Meyers never received a response to his letter of April 7, 1987. In reliance on the representation made to Meyers, he spent $225 on an appraisal. Gillis Transaction On or about November 10, 1986, James G. Gillis called Mid South about obtaining a mortgage loan and spoke with Cincotta, an employee of Mid South. On or about November 12, 1986, Gillis met with Cincotta who agreed to try to obtain a mortgage loan for Gillis. At the meeting with Cincotta on November 12, 1986, Gillis obtained a Good Faith Estimate which showed the interest rate to be 9 percent. Gillis declined to lock-in the 9 percent interest rate at that time, because Cincotta indicated her belief that the rates were coming down. Cincotta estimated that it would take between four and six weeks to close the mortgage loan. The Advance Disclosure Statement-Fixed Rate Mortgage Loan dated December 29, 1986, which indicates an interest rate of 9 percent and 2 points, was blank when it was signed by Gillis. On or about January 7, 1987, Cincotta locked Gillis in at the rate of 8 1/4 percent and 2 points. Cincotta indicated to Gillis that he was locked in until the mortgage loan closed. On or about March 24, 1987, Childers contacted Gill and indicated that he was ready to close at an interest rate of 8 3/4 percent and 3 points. In response, Gillis requested that he be given 8 1/4 percent with 2 points as agreed to on the Good Faith Estimate. On or about March 26, 1987, Childers and Gillis engaged in negotiations with regard to the mortgage loan but were unable to reach agreement. After the 60 days lock-in expired, Cincotta did not relock Gillis because the practice was that, once the loan had been submitted to Childers, Childers handled the lock-ins if they expired. By letter dated April 7, 1987, Gillis requested return of his appraisal, survey, credit report, and pest inspection, but did not receive any of said documents back. In reliance on the representations made by Mid South, Gillis spent $225 on an appraisal, $30 on a pest inspection, and $80 on a maintenance agreement. Mock Transaction On or about early January 1987, Jewel and George Mock received a Rate Bulletin put out by Mid South dated January 2, 1987. The Rate Bulletin stated in part: RATE FEES REMARKS . . . ONE YEAR A.R.M. 15 Year 5.00 percent 2.00 + 1.00 Annual, 5 percent Life Cap 2.5 percent Margin NO NEGATIVE In reliance on the Rate Bulletin, Mr. and Mrs. Mock, along with Gene Bogan, their realtor, went to the office of Mid South to obtain said A.R.M. loan on or about January 14, 1987, and spoke to Cincotta, an employee of Mid South. During the January 14, 1987, office visit, Cincotta agreed to attempt to obtain the A.R.M. loan for them. During the January 14, 1987, office visit, the Mocks were not told that the A.R.M. could become unavailable. Subsequent to the January 14, 1987, office visit, Mr. and Mrs. Mock received a Regulation Z Disclosure Statement which indicated that the Annual Percentage Rate of their mortgage loan was 9.399 percent. Mrs. Mock contacted Cincotta about the 9.399 percent on the Disclosure Statement. In response, Cincotta indicated the form was just a "general disclosure." Although Mr. and Mrs. Mock signed and returned the Disclosure Statement, they still were under the impression that they had qualified for the A.R.M. On or about February 1987, Bogan informed Mr. and Mrs. Mock that the loan on the Disclosure Statement was not the same as the loan that Mr. and Mrs. Mock had applied for. Rather than giving the Mocks the A.R.M., the Disclosure Statement was for a fixed rate of 8 3/4 percent G.E.M. loan. During February or March of 1987, Childers contacted Bogan and when Bogan insisted that the Mocks be given the loan they applied for, Childers responded, "Well, nobody can give you that." Childers further stated that the A.R.M. in the Rate Bulletin was a "misprint." On or about February 1987, Childers contacted Mr. Mock to inform him that the loan Mid South was obtaining for him was better because "the initial payments would be equivalent to somewhat less than five percent," and tried to persuade Mr. Mock to take the G.E.M. loan that Mid South was actually offering. During March or April 1987, Cincotta confirmed to Mr. Mock that the A.R.M. was not available. The A.R.M. would have been a better mortgage than the G.E.M. loan that was actually offered because, among other things, it would more quickly reduce the principal amount of the mortgage debt. In reliance on Mid South's representations that they were offering the A.R.M., Mr. and Mrs. Mock spent approximately $400 for brass fixtures, mirrors, and for having the rugs cleaned in the house they were seeking to purchase. Due to the failure of Mid South to give the Mocks the A.R.M., Bogan lost half of a $7,000 commission.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department issue final orders in these cases to the following effect: In DOAH Case No. 87-3299 Incorporating the terms of the stipulation and consent agreement entered into between the Department and William D. Hughes; Placing Carolyn G. Stanley on probation for a period of three years under the condition that she will not act as a principal mortgage broker, designated associated mortgage broker, or in any way supervise the operation of, or be responsible for the supervision of, a person or an office engaged in the business of acting as a mortgage broker pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes; Revoking the license of Mid South Mortgage Corporation to act as a registrant pursuant to Chapter 494, Florida Statutes; Fining John Childers a total of $10,000.00; and Fining Mid South Mortgage Corporation a total of $15,000.00. In DOAH Case No. 87-3300 Entering a cease and desist order against John Childers and Janie Cincotta ordering said persons to cease and desist from any and all present and future violations of the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, or the rules duly promulgated by the Department with respect thereto, more specifically, but not by way of limitation from, for compensation or gain, or in the expectation of compensation or gain, either directly or indirectly making, negotiating, acquiring, selling, or arranging for, or offering to make, negotiation, acquire, sell, or arrange for, a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment. In DOAH Case No. 87-3301 Entering a cease and desist order against Mid South Mortgage Corporation ordering said mortgage broker to cease and desist from any and all present and future violations of the provisions of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, or the rules duly promulgated by the Department with respect thereto, more specifically, but not by way of limitation from, operating a mortgage brokerage office in the state of Florida without having a duly licensed broker in full charge, control, and supervision of said office on a full-time basis. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parlay Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 87-3299, 87-3300, & 87-3301 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner All proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner have been accepted and Incorporated into the findings of fact in this recommended order, except as specifically noted below: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: The findings proposed in these paragraphs have been omitted from the findings of fact because they involve primarily procedural or introductory details. (Most of this information has been included in the introduction to the recommended order.) Paragraph 5: The findings proposed in this paragraph have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 50: Rejected as Irrelevant. Paragraph 51: Rejected a Irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 141, 142, and 143: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details (I have found that the A.R.M. would have been a better mortgage than the G.E.M.) Findings proposed by Respondents (The Respondents did not submit any proposed findings.) COPIES FURNISHED: John Childers, President Mid South Mortgage Corporation 955 Downtowner Boulevard, Suite 105 Mobile, Alabama 36609 Ms. Carolyn G. Stanley Mid South Mortgage Corporation 955 Downtowner Boulevard, Suite 105 Mobile, Alabama 36609 Ms. Janie Cincotta 2829 Village Circle Pensacola, Florida 32504 Mr. William D. Hughes 4347 Burton Wood Court Pensacola, Florida 32504 Paul C. Stadler, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact 1. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage brokers in Florida who worked for several companies were issued separate licenses for each company. P. Ex. 10, P. The Respondent, Dennis C. Young, had several such licenses, the first having been issued on March 26, 1982. Id., P. 9. Prior to September 1, 1986, mortgage broker's licenses were issued for only one year and expired annually on August 31st. P. Ex. 10, P. 9-10. During the period from September 1, 1985, through August 31, 1986, the Respondent had only one mortgage broker license HA 0006667 as an additional broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. R. Ex. 1, P. Ex. 10, P. 10-11. That license expired on August 31, 1986. Id. at P. 14. On January 22, 1986, the Respondent applied to the Petitioner, the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, for registration as a mortgage broker under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. P. Ex. 7. This application was for a license with Southern States Mortgage Company. P. Ex. 10, P. 12. On April 18, 1986, Petitioner denied the application of the Respondent for registration as a mortgage broker. The basis of the denial was a finding by the Petitioned of a number of statutory violations by the Respondent as a mortgage broker for American Financial Consultants of Central Florida. P. Ex. 10, P. 13. On July 11, 1986, or shortly thereafter, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that his request for a formal administrative hearing with respect to the denial of his application for registration as a mortgage broker was denied because not timely filed, and advised the Respondent that he had thirty days from July 11, 1986, in which to file an appeal, if he so desired, to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The Respondent contacted the attorney for the petitioner. The attorney for the petitioner in fact told the Respondent that he could reapply for a license, and if his application was again denied, the Respondent could then seek a formal administrative hearing and judicial review. The Respondent was also told that the petitioner would not forego or abate the final order denying the application, but was advised to "let sit" the final order denying his January 22, 1986, application. T. 100. The Respondent did not file a judicial appeal from the July 11, 1986, order. During the period from September 1, 1986, to November 12, 1987, the Respondent was not a licensed mortgage broker licensed by the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. P. Ex. 6, P. Ex. 10, P. 15. Between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987, the Respondent did not file any application with the Petit loner for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 10, p. 15. In about December, 1986, the Respondent was hired by Independence One Mortgage Corporation as a builder's loan representative for a builder that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then servicing. The builder was building and selling homes in the Williamsburg subdivision. T. 33, 35-37, 64. The Respondent's office was located at the building site. Independence One Mortgage Corporation hired the Respondent to offer to the clients of the builder the type of mortgage that Independence One Mortgage Corporation was then offering, and in so doing, to handle all aspects of negotiating mortgage loan commitments, from initial interview, making quotes of daily mortgage rates to the builder's customers, and following up on the application from the beginning to closing of the mortgage. T. 37. The Respondent told Independence One Mortgage Corporation that he held a current valid mortgage broker's license with Investor's Home Mortgage Company and showed the agent of Independence One a "license" that the Respondent claimed was his and was then valid. T. 37. This statement was untrue. The agent for Independence One Mortgage Corporation who hired the Respondent had known the Respondent several years earlier as an aggressive mortgage solicitor. T. 36 Independence One Mortgage Corporation thought that the Respondent then held a valid mortgage broker's license, and would not have hired the Respondent if he had not represented that he was a licensed mortgage broker. T. 37-38. While employed by Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated mortgage loans. He quoted mortgage rates to prospective borrowers, received and processed applications from prospective borrowers, prepared good faith estimates of settlement charges, and closed mortgage loans. T. 42-56, 96-97; P. Exs. 1, 2, 4, and 5. During his employment with Independence One Mortgage Corporation, the Respondent negotiated over 40 mortgage loans. T. 55. From December, 1986, to May, 1987, the Respondent was paid a salary by Independence One Mortgage Corporation. In May, 1987, due to a lack of mortgage demand, Independence One placed the Respondent on a commission basis only. About two weeks later, the Respondent resigned his employment with Independence One. T. 55-57, 65-66. At about the same time, Independence One Mortgage Corporation learned that the Respondent did not have a valid mortgage broker's license. T. 57-59. On June 12, 1987, the Respondent filed another application for licensure as a mortgage broker. P. Ex. 9. In answer to question number 6, which asked whether he had ever had his license "denied, suspended or revoked," he answered no. This answer was not true. P. Ex. 10, P. 16. The Respondent testified that he answered question number 6 in the negative because he thought that he would be afforded a right to contest the previous denial of his application if the new application was denied. At the time that the Respondent stated in his application that he had never had a license previously denied, the Respondent knew that statement was not true. He knew that he might again reapply and in such reapplication contest the basis for denial, but he also knew that the denial of the first application was final and that he had lost his right to appeal. See findings of-fact 5 through 8. If the Respondent had answered yes to question 6, he was required by the application form to identify the agency that denied the application for licensure and to provide the names of the complaining parties. P. Ex. 9. By failing to truthfully answer question 6, the Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner of the existence of the prior dispute concerning his licensure. This was a material misstatement of fact. If the Respondent had been candidly pursuing the option of making a second application in order to gain another appeal right, he would have candidly disclosed to the Petitioner in his second application that a prior application had been denied. In that manner, the Respondent would have laid the issue squarely on the table. By answering no to question 6, the Respondent affirmatively sought to mislead the Petitioner so that the prior basis of denial might not become the basis for denial of the second application. The Petitioner construes the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as mandating that a license be issued if not denied within ninety days from the filing of the application. P. Ex. 10, pp. 20-23. During the period in which the June 12, 1987, application was pending, the Petitioner did not independently verify the answers to questions on the license application, and assumed that the answer to question 6 was correct. P. Ex. 10, pp. 16 and 20. Had it known that the Respondent had previously been denied a mortgage broker's license, the Petitioner would have denied the application of June 12, 1987, for a material misrepresentation of facts. P. Ex. 10, P. 23. For these reasons, and since the ninety day period had expired, the Petitioner issued mortgage broker license HA 261088342 to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. P. Ex. 6. In July, 1987, Colony First Mortgage Corporation was looking for a branch manager for its Mount Dora, Florida, office. The company wanted a branch manager who held a mortgage broker's license to solicit business, as well as to hire and supervise other loan officers. T. 25. The Respondent applied for the job, and Colony First Mortgage Corporation asked for his mortgage broker's license. T. 93. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he had a mortgage broker's license. T. 26. This statement was untrue. In July, 1987, the Respondent was employed by Colony First Mortgage Corporation as a branch manager in the Mount Dora, Florida, office. T. 24-25, 59-60. Colony First Mortgage paid the Respondent a salary with an override of the branch's mortgage loan production. It was also possible for the Respondent to have been paid a small commission for mortgage loans that he might personally have solicited, but there is no evidence in the record (one way or the other) that any commissions were ever paid or not paid. T. 26, 28. The Petitioner requires that licensed mortgage brokers who change employment file an "application for endorsement" to change the registration of that license to the new employment. T. 72# At some time shortly before August 11, 1987, the Respondent filed with the Petitioner an "application for endorsement" for endorsement of a mortgage broker's license to work for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. P. Ex. 8. Colony First Mortgage Corporation required the Respondent to file this application as a condition of the Respondent's employment. The application bears the signature of a William D. Tharpe, dated August 11, 1987, representing himself as the principal broker for the Respondent, and stating that the Respondent was employed on July 6, 1987, as a mortgage broker. The Respondent submitted the application for endorsement 50 that he would be licensed as a mortgage broker working as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage Corporation. The Respondent characterized his own activity at Colony First Mortgage as operation as a mortgage broker for Colony First Mortgage. T. 10. But he denied that he personally solicited loans, T. 109, and characterized his work as supervision of loan officers, who did solicit and negotiate mortgage loans. T. 109-111. In his employment at Colony First Mortgage, the Respondent hired staff, since all prior staff had left, and trained and supervised loan officers. T. 110-111. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally solicited or negotiated mortgage loans. Toward the end of October, 1987, Colony First Mortgage learned that the Respondent did not have a mortgage broker's license. The company removed the Respondent from his manager's position and subsequently terminated his employment. T. 27# Directly under the heading of the Respondent's application for endorsement is the statement: "Use this form only if currently licensed." Two lines under that statement is the following statement in bold print: "CURRENT LICENSE MUST BE RETURNED WITH THIS APPLICATION." The Respondent signed the form and stated in part I of the form that he had license number HA 001637. Another license number appears above the first number, and is HA 0016329. P. Ex. 8. The application for endorsement is used only if the applicant has a current license. Neither license number was a valid license currently or previously held by the Respondent. Thus, the representation on the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, as to license numbers was untrue. T. 114. The Respondent admits placing the first number on the form and denies placing the second number on the form. The Respondent asserts that the first number he placed on the form was his guess as to the correct number, and that he thought the petitioner would correct it if it were incorrect. He further asserts that he represented that he was licensed because he thought that since he had reapplied, the prior denial of licensure was still a pending issue, and that he could rely on earlier licenses that had expired. He further stated that he intended the number to represent the number of one of his earlier licenses. T. 115. The Respondent did hold license number HA 0016329, which expired on August 31, 1985, and license number HA 0006667, which expired on August 31, 1986. R. Ex. 1 and 2. It is credible that the Respondent was trying to use one of his expired license numbers, notably, the one that expired on August 31, 1985, HB 0016329, which is similar to the number he used, HA 001637. But it is not credible that the Respondent thought that he was "currently licensed" as required by the form. The Respondent knew that his prior licenses expired automatically each year. T. 116. He knew that his January 22, 1986, application had been denied. He knew he was not currently licensed. T. 102. He only had pending an application for a license, and had no currently active license number. Thus, it is concluded that the Respondent knew that he did not have a valid license number when he placed the number HA 001637 on the application for endorsement. This was a material misstatement of fact. See findings of fact 38, 39, and 47. The Respondent denies that he placed the second license number HA 0016329 upon the application. The second series of numbers is written in larger script than the first one. While there are some similarities in some of the numbers compared to other numbers written by the Respondent on the application (the 6 is the same as the 6 in the Respondent's social security number and telephone number, the 2 is the same as the first 2 in the telephone number), there is insufficient evidence in this record to conclude that the Respondent placed the second license number on the application. P. Ex. 8. The Petitioner relied upon the statements in the application for endorsement, P. Ex. 8, when it issued the mortgage broker's license to the Respondent on November 12, 1987. p. Ex. 10, P. 20.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance, enter its final order finding that Dennis C. Young committed the violations described above and revoking license number HA 261088342 issued to him on November 1, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2273 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact in this appendix are adopted as additional findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 1. The phrase "due to fiat of operation of law" is a conclusion of law, not fact. 2, 5, 6, 7, 22, 23, 39, 46 (second sentence) 49, 50, and 55. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 14 (first sentence). The fact that a witness "testified" in a certain way is not a relevant finding of fact. The subject matter of the Respondent's testimony, that he in fact filed another application in May or June of 1986, is rejected as not proven by credible evidence. The Department had no evidence of any application between January 22, 1986, and June 12, 1987. The testimony of the Respondent on this point was not supported by a copy of the alleged application. Due to the Respondent's evasiveness as to other material points at issue in this case, the testimony of the Respondent is rejected as not credible and unsupported. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 1.C. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. 1.E. While these proposed findings of fact are true, they are irrelevant. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), F1a. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." The relevant issue is what the Respondent in fact did, not what the titles on the form said. 1.F-H. These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the credible evidence. 2.D.and G. A "mortgage broker" is defined by law (section 494.02(3), Fla. Stat.) to include any person, who for compensation or gain, "directly or indirectly" "negotiates" "a mortgage loan or mortgage loan commitment." As discussed in the conclusions of law, the Respondent indirectly negotiated mortgage loans through his supervision of loan officers at Colony First Mortgage Corporation. 2.F. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. See P. Ex. 8. 3.A.1-3. The Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz told him to "let sit" the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and the Respondent admitted that Mr. Berkowitz, on behalf of the Petitioner, would not abate or forgo the decision of denial. T. 100. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent knew that his application had been denied. This, coupled with receipt of P. Ex. 7, makes any contrary belief not credible. 3.B.4. There was intent to deceive. The Respondent knew he was not currently licensed. He knew the earlier license (the one which he tried to place by number on application) had expired. He knew that his last application had been finally denied. He only had a pending application (June 12, 1987), and had no decision on that yet. The Respondent told Colony First Mortgage Corporation that he was currently licensed. If the Respondent had no intent to deceive, he would have clearly mentioned on the application for endorsement the denial of his January 22, 1986, application, and his theory of the continued "existence" of his expired license. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dennis C. Young 4050 Gallagher Loop Post Office Box 771 Casselberry, Florida 32707 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
